Friday, October 18, 2019

Bull

All about bull
I. Get Bullish

Bull is a TV series that features and focuses on a company which specializes in court trials.

More specifically, Bull focuses in on the social science involved with jury selection.

Typically, law firms hire jury experts to inform them about the type of jurors that would be best suited for them and their client in a jury trial (Trial consulting).

II. Special Mob Bull

What mob boss would not love to be able to hand pick their own jury, a jury like The Donski (a.k.a. the president of the United States of America) has?!

Imagine a mob boss who is going on trial before a true jury of his peers (e.g. same crime family)?

I am talking about the jury who will hear the case of The Donski (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20).

His jury has already been selected (the U.S. Senate) and has already indicated how they will vote.

In a Senate trial it takes 67 votes to convict and remove The Donski from office, following a House impeachment.

The Senate currently has 51 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 Independents who both caucus with the Democrats.

Thus, it would take 18 Republicans voting guilty if all the Democrats and Independents vote guilty to reach the 67 required vote total.

A tough job even for Bull.

III. McTell News Bull

McTell News is all aflutter with hopey changey broadcasts emphasizing the fact that the public majority is in favor of impeachment and removal from office of The Donski:
"Currently, 52% say Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 46% say he should not be. This is roughly the opposite of what Gallup found in June when asked in the context of special counselor Robert Mueller's investigation."
(Gallup Poll). No doubt about the direction this is heading, but heading in a direction is not the same as being there (it's all "are we there yet" at this point).

The McTell News folks under-emphasize the fact that only about six percent of Republicans polled in that Gallup Poll are in favor of impeachment and removal (down from seven percent a while back).

Like I said, a tough job even for Bull.

IV. Closing Comments

It would be malpractice for a lawyer to encourage a client in this situation, as it stands today, to expect a good outcome in that client's favor.

Especially if the client is the prosecutor or the majority in the House of Representatives.

Even though some of the jury's heroes (e.g.  4-star Admirals) indicate that The Donski is dangerously anti-American (Our Republic Is Under Attack From the PresidentAdmiral William McRaven: America Is ‘Under Attack’ From TrumpTrump: The Un-American President).

Can you see a despotic minority (How To Identify The Despotic Minority, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)?

Stay tuned to the saga of The Donski Hotey trial.

Thursday, October 17, 2019

How Much Sea Level Rise Makes A Sea Port Extinct?

That is enough (~1.25%)
I. Not Much

What percent of the Cryosphere has to melt in order to endanger world sea ports?

It varies with the age of the sea port and the location.

In other words, some sea ports are more vulnerable than others.

But a very general rule of thumb is that about one meter of global mean average sea level rise will cause serious problems at some seaports.

II. Cryosphere Locations

Many sea ports have been discussed in principle in this light in many previous Dredd Blog posts (e.g. Proxymetry3).

The table below indicates how much melt, percentage wise, of the various Cryosphere locations would add up to one meter of mean sea level rise.

That table shows location, volume, maximum sea level rise, and the percentage of melt it takes to add up to one meter of global mean average sea level rise.

Isn't it surprising that only about 1.25% of the Cryposphere needs to melt in order to threaten civilization's seaports with a meter of sea level rise?


Location Volume (km) Max SLR (m) SLR @ ~1.25% (m)
East Antarctic ice sheet26,039,20064.80.806773
West Antarctic ice sheet3,262,0008.060.100349
Antarctic Peninsula227,1000.460.00572709
Greenland2,620,0006.550.0815488
All Other180,0000.450.00560259
Totals32,328,30080.321



The added impact of ghost water (click to enlarge table below):


See USGS Source and The Ghost-Water Constant


III. Closing Comments

For individual sea port characteristics, see Seaports With Sea Level Change - 6 and appendices.

Note also that "ghost water" can hasten a sea port's demise (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4, 5; NASA Busts The Ghost).

Saturday, October 12, 2019

The Peak Of The Oil Wars - 15

Feel your inner clock
I. Ancient History

Is 'oil wars' an ancient concept or is it just that we are not informed about 'oil wars' any more?

In this series that question has been asked and answered (The Peak Of The Oil Wars, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14).

The way it began is something like this:
Long before politicians mewled helplessly about the power of “Big Oil”, carbon-based fuels were shaping our very political, legal, intellectual, and physical structures.
...
For instance, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a pivotal moment in America’s strategic outlook. America, a global hegemon whose empire was weakening, seized the second largest oil deposits in the world as a way of preventing its economic and political decline.
...
The last declining global hegemon, Great Britain, also engaged in a brutal and highly controversial British occupation of Iraq, in the 1920s, pressed aggressively by the well-known British conservative, Winston Churchill.
...
From the moment he arrived at the Admiralty, a young man of destiny, Churchill started to prepare the fleet for the Battle of Armageddon he believed was inevitable.
...
Then, in 1911, the German Kaiser provoked the Agadir crisis ... Churchill went to the Admiralty and his outlook transformed. He was immediately confronted with the decisive question: to convert the navy from coal to oil ... the "fateful plunge" was made ... in April 1912 ... five oil-burning battleships were approved.
...
Britain was well supplied with coal [but not oil]. It was the Royal Navy which was the impetus for the development of the oil industry in Britain. The problem was supply and the security of that supply. Initially, the British government purchased shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, subsequently, British Petroleum [BP].
...
Then, to prevent further disruptions, Britain enmeshed itself ever more deeply in the Middle East, working to install new shahs in Iran and carve Iraq out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

Churchill fired the starting gun, but all of the Western powers joined the race to control Middle Eastern oil.
(The Universal Smedley - 2). Strange beliefs mixed with technology and fossil fuels - particularly their location, is part and parcel of the real story.

So is foreign policy inspired by fossil fuels:
John D. Rockefeller, in his 1909 Random Reminiscences of Men and Events, recalled, "One of our greatest helpers has been the State Department. Our ambassadors and ministers and consuls have aided to push our way into new markets in the utmost corners of the world." But he left out a key explanation for the government's interest. Standard Oil was the biggest U.S. company, putting a hundred ships to sea, buying and selling oil in Latin America, Germany, and the Far East. It also operated a global intelligence system. "By 1885," according to one historian, "seventy percent of the Standard's business was overseas and it had its own network of agents through the world, and its own espionage service, to forestall the initiatives of rival companies or governments."
...
"The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells or metal mines."
(The Authoritarianism of Climate Change). That was then perhaps, but is it still like that now?

II. Modern History

Once upon a time in Northern Iraq Kurds had hope of becoming oil-rich by controlling the oil rich areas around Kirkuk, but that did not pan out because the U.S. said so (Yes, Donald Trump Dumped the Kurds (And We Should Not Be Shocked)).

Meanwhile in Syria, oil ("the devil's excrement") was warping minds there (Syrian Oil, and… what caused the war?).

Then, once upon a time in N. Syria Kurds had hope of becoming oil-rich but ISIS controlled N. Syria where most of the Syrian oil is located.

So war broke out between the Kurds and ISIS (Control of Syrian Oil Fuels War Between Kurds and Islamic State).

The Syrian Kurds won that oil war (Kurds control 65 to 70% of Syrian Oil).

Now the Turks evidently want Syria’s Oil:
Even before the war, Syria was only a modest producer of oil and gas, averaging 400,000 barrels per day between 2008-2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of it exported to Europe and Turkey. Proven reserves stood at 2.5 billion barrels as of January 2013, according to estimates in the Oil & Gas Journal. That’s dwarfed by neighboring Iraq’s 145 billion barrels. Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Chevron Corp., and Total SA were among companies working in ventures with the state-run Syrian Petroleum Co. before the war. Most of Syria’s major oil assets are located in the Kurdish-controlled northeast. Exploration could also lead to the discovery of off-shore gas reserves given that giant deposits were found in Mediterranean waters further south near Egypt, Israel and Cyprus.
(Washington Post). As the beat goes on:
Turkish invasion could also open the door for Russian and Syrian forces to invade SDF territory from the west, or else prompt the SDF to form an alliance with the Assad regime and its allies to protect the mostly Kurdish force from Turkey’s advance. That could increase the influence of Assad’s Russian and Iranian partners in the region and grant them access to north-east Syria’s lucrative oil fields.
(Guardian).

Who knows what else is involved?

Certainly not the U.S. president who said he was mad at Kurds for selling oil to Iran:
During a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, Trump said he was not happy that the Kurds are selling oil to Iran.

“I didn’t like the fact that [the Kurds] are selling the small oil that they have to Iran, and we asked them not to do it,” the US president stated.
(Kurdistan24 News). And so it goes.

III. Closing Comments

What we see in headlines in daily news papers and on TV and social media is the endless oil wars that came with the devil's excrement (Iran says missiles strike its oil tanker off Saudi Arabia).

They will reach their peak when they, the oil wars, go nuclear (The Doomsday Clock).

The previous post in this series is here.



Sunday, October 6, 2019

The Harm Oil-Qaeda Has Done - 2

Truth Be Known
I. Foreward

The first post of this series gave a brief history of Oil-Qaeda in a blogish kind of way (The Harm Oil-Qaeda Has Done).

A newly published book "Blowout" does the same thing in a bookish kind of way:
"In 2010, the words 'earthquake swarm' entered the lexicon in Oklahoma. That same year, a trove of Michael Jackson memorabilia—including his iconic crystal-encrusted white glove—was sold at auction for over $1 million to a guy who was, officially, just the lowly forestry minister of the tiny nation of Equatorial Guinea. And in 2014, Ukrainian revolutionaries raided the palace of their ousted president and found a zoo of peacocks, gilded toilets, and a floating restaurant modeled after a Spanish galleon. Unlikely as it might seem, there is a thread connecting these events, and Rachel Maddow follows it to its crooked source: the unimaginably lucrative and equally corrupting oil and gas industry.

With her trademark black humor, Maddow takes us on a switchback journey around the globe, revealing the greed and incompetence of Big Oil and Gas along the way, and drawing a surprising conclusion about why the Russian government hacked the 2016 U.S. election. She deftly shows how Russia’s rich reserves of crude have, paradoxically, stunted its growth, forcing Putin to maintain his power by spreading Russia’s rot into its rivals, its neighbors, the West’s most important alliances, and the United States. Chevron, BP, and a host of other industry players get their star turn, most notably [Humble Oil-Qaeda] [a.k.a.] ExxonMobil and the deceptively well-behaved Rex Tillerson [a.k.a. T-Rex]. The oil and gas industry has weakened democracies in developed and developing countries, fouled oceans and rivers, and propped up authoritarian thieves and killers. But being outraged at it is, according to Maddow, “like being indignant when a lion takes down and eats a gazelle. You can’t really blame the lion. It’s in her nature.”

Blowout is a call to contain the lion: to stop subsidizing the wealthiest businesses on earth, to fight for transparency, and to check the influence of the world’s most destructive industry and its enablers. The stakes have never been higher. As Maddow writes, 'Democracy either wins this one or disappears.'”
(Barnes & Noble, emphasis added; more reviews: Washington Post, Good Reads, Rachel Maddow). It's just another brick in the wall.

II. The Beat Goes On

Regular readers know that Dredd Blog has been pointing out this Oil-Qaeda reality for years, and has been targeted, along with author Steve Coll, in a book written by an Oil-Qaeda operative (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder- 6).

III. Closing Comments

Stay safe Rachael, I am nothing to them but you are, so remember the nature of the religion of The Borg (they ignore what they think can do them no serious harm - me ... but you got game ... so ... like I say, be careful).

The previous post in this series is here.



Saturday, October 5, 2019

In Search Of Ocean Heat - 8

Follow The Potential Enthalpy
I. Start Here

One of the more oft-written phrases concerning anthropogenic global warming induced climate change is "worse than previously thought."

A long-winded version of that concept has recently made its way into Scientific American magazine (Scientific American, 2019, "Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change").

The competent scientists who wrote the article seem to have been intimidated, by the powers that be, into criticizing past in situ gathering methods.

Layer 0, Zone 1800
Layer 1, Zone 1700
Layer 2, Zone 1600
They exaggerated beyond what they should have:
"The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb’s wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags."
(ibid, Scientific American). That is a straw man argument wrapped in irrelevance which will do nothing to improve the analysis of the vast in situ measurement data sets that have for decades been available to researchers who are not lazy.

The "sea surface temperatures" they mentioned are essentially irrelevant in the sense that surface-temperature-only analysis is only a skimming-the-surface type of analysis.

"Real scientists" go deep into the depths of the oceans because real analysis is the deep analysis of those depths rather than merely skimming the surface just to, for example, acquire grant money.

Ignoring highly scientific data from hundreds of years ago (e.g. Newton, 1687 and Woodward, 1888) is a much larger error than "open buckets, lamb’s wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags" used by curious sailors of yesteryear (The World According To Measurements, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21).

Layer 3, Zone 1500
Layer 4, Zone 1400
Layer 5, Zone 1300
The consequences of ignoring existing data (e.g. World Ocean Database) can not be useful since in situ measurements are observations:
"Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt."
(ibid, Scientific American). The glaciers were known to be melting by scientists working for Oil-Qaeda way back in 1962 when they took out a center-spread advertisement in Life Magazine (Humble Oil-Qaeda), and one of the authors of the Scientific American article "wrote the book" on the impact Humble Oil-Qaeda has had on climate change propaganda (The Exceptional American Denial).

The authors who wrote the Scientific American article, mentioned in Section I above, extol the virtues of temperature as if ocean temperature monitoring is the real problem.

Temperature is not the whole story, as will be shown.

But I agree with them that, for the most part, scientists working in academic endeavors are not as culpable as corporate scientists working under profit motive endeavors are (See e.g. Scientific reticence and sea level rise).

II. How To Use Lotsa Data

I use about 5.5 billion in situ measurements from the WOD 13 database to produce the oceanography oriented posts on Dredd Blog (WOD Update).

Those in situ measurements have to be utilized in a careful process, using the best oceanographic sources (the Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010, TEOS-10), and while using the best oceanographic software available (the TEOS-10 toolkit).

Not using a robust data source is one real cause for "worse than previously thought" articles that have been written for years, if not decades.

Yet, the other real cause of the general problem is that some procedures in current software models are not properly constructed:
"In developing the equations for ocean dynamics, it is necessary to
Layer 8, Zone 1000
Layer 9, Zone 3000
Layer 10, Zone 3100
Layer 11, Zone 3200
Layer 12, Zone 3300
Layer 13, Zone 3400
Layer 14, Zone 3500
Layer 15, Zone 3600
introduce an equation relating density ρ to pressure P, temperature T, and salinity S ... This relationship is purely empirical, as it arises from the physico-chemical properties of the particular fluid. For seawater ... we also need to write a conservation equation that governs temperature, or, more generally, “heat”. But what is “heat”? It is not temperature, although clearly it is related to temperature. We know that temperature cannot measure heat directly for several reasons, based on measurements of the actual properties of seawater. One is that the temperature increases with pressure. Thus it cannot be a conserved property of an isolated water parcel in the same way that salt content is conserved. We can remove this effect by considering a pressure-corrected variable called potential temperature (about which we shall say more later), but even the potential temperature cannot measure “heat” properly, because the heat capacity of seawater - the amount of energy it takes to change the temperature by 1 K - is not a constant, but varies with temperature and salinity. Thus when mixing parcels of seawater, the temperature of the mixture is not the average of the original temperatures. Instead our understanding of “heat” must be related to energy in some way." - (p.1)

"There is therefore no perfect way to create a conservative heat tracer ... Traditionally, so-called potential temperature has been used as an approximately conservative heat tracer, but doing so cannot be rigorously justified. As we shall show, the best solution currently known is to consider the potential enthalpy ... potential temperature is not conserved under isobaric mixing! Attempting to replace h with θ in eqn. (36) results in all kinds of additional terms on the right hand side of the resulting equation; these result in the “production” of temperature when parcels are mixed. These extra terms have traditionally been ignored, but their effect is in fact noticeable (i.e., lead to predictions that are not matched by observations) when considering ocean processes." (p.11)

"Another variable with the potential property is the potential enthalpy h0 ... Although potential enthalpy is not perfectly conservative ... h0 is effectively conservative. Since the potential enthalpy is a somewhat unusual parameter for oceanographers (and for any- one else!), under TEOS-10 ... a computationally efficient 75-term polynomial is available for this purpose." (pp. 11-12)
(Lecture Overview of Seawater Thermodynamics; accord: Potential Enthalpy: A Conservative Oceanic Variable for Evaluating Heat Content and Heat Fluxes, emphasis added). The TEOS-10 toolkit allows the straightforward calculation of ocean heat (a.k.a. potential enthalpy, h0).

The graphs today show how potential enthalpy is in proportion to Conservative Temperature and thermal expansion and contraction.

The pattern match indicates clearly that thermal expansion and contraction is in a thermodynamic relation with both CT and h0 when the analysis software is configured properly.

The reasons for some of the errors in ocean heat content (OHC) models is not limited to the use of the variable "potential temperature."

The misuse of the mass unit value is also a factor:
"A common practice in sea level research is to analyze separately the variability of the steric and mass components of sea level. However, there are conceptual and practical issues that have sometimes been misinterpreted, leading to erroneous and contradictory conclusions on regional sea level variability. The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant."
(Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, emphasis added). There is a way to derive and use the appropriate mass unit value and keep it fixed while calculating its volume changes over time (thermal expansion and contraction is the changing of volume of a fixed mass unit of seawater over time caused by temperature changes of that fixed mass unit of seawater).

Why is this relevant to the analysis of the impact of global warming induced climate change on the oceans?

It is relevant because without proper search techniques we can't find the OHC we are ostensibly looking for.

III. First Things First

After selecting an array of annual in situ values for temperature (T), salinity (SP), depth ("height" in TEOS-10), latitude, and longitude values in a particular WOD zone, convert them into TEOS-10 values CT (conservative temperature), SA (absolute salinity), and P (pressure).

Thereafter, the first order of business, when properly analyzing TEOS-10 based thermal expansion and thermal contraction, is to calculate the mass unit of seawater being analyzed.

To do that the depth levels must be isolated and their mass unit values determined for each WOD Zone being analyzed.

I calculate the mass unit value of each WOD Zone first, remembering that latitude and longitude boundaries for each such zone vary, because the "l" (length) and "w" (width) in the formula mu = l*w*h varies (not to mention the "h").

In other words, the rectangles may look to be the same size on the WOD map but they actually vary in area and in mass from layer to layer because they are drawn on a globe (spherical trigonometry formulas must be used). [I am working on improved calculations in cases where zones are part ocean and part land near coasts]

For "h" (mass unit height) I use the 33 WOD depth levels enumerated in Appendix 11 of the WOD manual (World Ocean Database User's Manual).

Those 33 depth levels are: 0-10, >10-20, >20-30, >30-50, >50-75, >75-100, >100-125, >125-150, >150-200, >200-250, >250-300, >300-400, >400-500, >500-600, >600-700, >700-800, >800-900, >900-1000, >1000-1100, >1100-1200, >1200-1300, >1300-1400, >1400-1500, >1500-1750, >1750-2000, >2000-2500, >2500-3000, >3000-3500, >3500-4000, >4000-4500, >4500-5000, >5000-5500, >5500 (You can see why I don't use a hand held calculator for this.)

There are other depth levels that could be used, but I use those listed because the WOD manual has valid high and low value ranges for temperature and salinity for each of those depth levels (in all oceans).

I calculate TEOS-10 potential enthalpy values using the toolkit functions:
double s_enthalpy = gsw_enthalpy_ct_exact(SA, CT, P);
double d_enthalpy = gsw_dynamic_enthalpy(SA, CT, P);

h0 = s_enthalpy - d_enthalpy;
Thermal expansion and contraction calculation begins by calculating the Thermal Expansion Coefficient:  tec = gsw_alpha(SA,CT,P).

The thermosteric volume change (thermal expansion or contraction) can then be calculated by:

/*******************************************
  V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT)
  V1 means new thermosteric volume
  V0 means original thermosteric volume
  β means thermal expansion coefficient
  ΔT means change in temperature (tnow - tbefore)
*********************************************/
double StericSLC::thermalExpansion(double mass_unit_vol, /** V0 */
                                                             double tec, /** β */
                                                             double tnow, /** T now */
                                                             double tbefore) /** T before */
{
     double V0 = mass_unit_vol;
     double β = tec;
     double ΔT = tnow - tbefore;
     double V1 = V0 * (1 + (β * ΔT) );

     return V1;
}

(Dredd Blog C++ thermal expansion method).  The V1 value is then divided by 361.841 to derive the sea level change in millimeters (a positive value means thermal expansion, a negative value means thermal contraction).

That exercise must be done for each depth level, then the 33 separate values must be summed to derive the totality of the thermosteric impact on that zone.

The results of the calculations can then be saved into a CSV file to be used for making graphs.

IV. The Graphs

Today's graphs are single zone graphs generated using the process described above.

The thermal expansion and contraction pattern matches the patterns of CT and h0  as one would expect, since they are all thermodynamically proportional to OHC at all depths.

That proportion match means that the thermal expansion and contraction has been calculated correctly.

V. Closing Comments

Ladies and Gentlemen, start your search engines.

This post is a public service of Dredd Blog.

See how hard I work for you?

The previous post in this series is here.

Academy of Sciences member Dr. Eric Rignot:





Friday, September 27, 2019

Impeachment IS Governing

Balance of powers

I. Governing Writ Large

Impeachment fearmongers use the talking point falsehood that impeachment is not "governing."

Anyone who passed fifth grade civics knows better than that:
"Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. It is the first step in a remedial process - that of removal from public office and possible disqualification from holding further office. The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; rather, its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government."
(Deschler Ch 14 App. pp 726–728, emphasis added). Those who say that the House of Representatives should not conduct an impeachment inquiry are adverse to maintaining a constitutional government:
"The president is considering ... [portraying] House Democrats as liberal insiders who are focused on impeachment instead of governing."
(Washington Post, emphasis added). According to our fake president, maintaining the form of government envisioned in the United States Constitution and laws is not an act of governing the United States.

He and his sycophantic enablers are just plain anti-American and filled to the brim with dishonesty wrapped in ignorance.

II. Inquiry Writ Large

The activity that precedes an impeachment is an inquiry:
"inquiry: the act of asking for information: An inquiry is also an official attempt to discover the facts about something."
(Dictionary, emphasis added). Those who are adverse to the facts are adverse to an inquiry into constitutional governing.

III. Closing Comments

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.”—George Orwell

Experience has shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

"Thus, the degree to which a Whistleblower in the U.S. government is mistreated is directly related to the degree of corruption that been established within that government." - Dredd

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
(Article I § 2 U.S. Constitution, emphasis added)

Let the facts fall where they may and establish the inquiry (we do not want leaderskip we want leadership).

Favorite songs of republican senators ...





Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Seaports With Sea Level Change - 6

Make Others Do It
I. Background

This is an update to the Seaports With Sea Level Change series.

Two factors necessitated the update.

The first is that the PMSL updated their databases, and the second is that I added a couple of Cryosphere locations (Norway and "The Third Pole").

This will have an impact on seaport data for seaports in or near WOD Zones within 2,000 kilometers of Norway glaciers or The Third Pole area (Himalayas).

Think of The Third Pole area as north of India but near enough to the coast of India to have either sea level rise (SLR) or sea level fall (SLF) impacts on ports in that area.

Third Pole data will change only the analysis of that area of the Cryosphere where it is causing SLF in areas within 2,000 km of seaports (e.g. China or India).

The seaport data detailing the characteristics of each seaport from World Ports by Country is unchanged, but in some cases the PSMSL sea level change (SLC) updates may change the SLF or SLR values at some seaports and tide gauge stations (Seaports With Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4, 5).

II. The Origins and Dynamics of Modern SLC

It seems that many people are still unaware of the non-intuitive way in which SLC takes place.

I would venture to say that regular Dredd Blog readers do not have that problem, because the nature of SLC is discussed often here.

It starts with the work of Woodward (1888) which has been enhanced:
"It has been known for over a century that the melting of individual ice sheets and glaciers drives distinct geographic patterns, or fingerprints, of sea level change, and recent studies have highlighted the implications of this variability for hazard assessment and inferences of meltwater sources."
(Mitrovica et al. 2018, emphasis added). Mitrovica et al. (2018) used advanced analytic techniques to enhance that understanding (cf. The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water).

The Woodward (1888) hypothesis that SLF takes place because the seawater is relocated as the ice sheet gravity decreases in power has been confirmed by NASA (NASA Busts The Ghost).

Basically, it goes like this: during the previous Ice Age a Cryosphere was formed when great masses of ice froze in place on many of the Earth's land masses.

Due to the gravity created by the mass of those great ice sheets and glaciers that had formed, seawater was pulled toward the coasts of those land masses upon which the ice masses came to rest.

When the Industrial Revolution began, circa 1750, green house gases (GHG) began to be emitted into the atmosphere as the use of fossil fuels increased.

The GHG began to trap more and more heat (infrared radiation) in the atmosphere, and the global temperatures began to rise and melt the ice.

According to one of the largest oil companies, fossil fuels were the cause of the melt (Humble Oil-Qaeda).

At first they bragged about it, but after a couple of decades they began to backtrack from their admission and to deceive the public about the warming that was taking place.

In effect they became an epi-government, pulling the strings of government from behind the scenes (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, The Harm Oil-Qaeda Has Done).

As a result of the subterfuge they instituted, and its impact on the scientific community (which still exists to this day) the notion of global warming caused by fossil fuels faded into the shadows (A Falsified Oil-Qaeda Hypothesis Spreads).

Nevertheless, the general nature of SLC is now well-known by those who focus on it:
"A standard global calculation based on the assumption of uniform, rapid melting from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) equivalent in volume to a GMSL rise of 1 mm yr-1 highlights the physical effects that contribute to sea level fingerprints (see Fig. S1 in the online supplemental material at the Journals Online website: https://doi.org/ 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0465.s1.). Within a zone that extends ~2000 km from an ice sheet, sea level will fall [a few exceptions - see appendices] as a consequence of both the decreased gravitational pull of the diminished ice sheet and the elastic uplift of the crust in response to the ice unloading. At the edges of Greenland, this sea level fall can reach ~10 mm yr-1, an order of magnitude larger than (and of opposite sign to) the equivalent GMSL rise. The predicted sea level change generally increases at progressively greater distance from the ice sheet, with maximum values of ~1.4 mm yr-1 in regions far from the melting ice."
(Mitrovica et al. 2018, emphasis added). The rule of thumb for SLC is that SLF takes place near ice sheets as they melt because the released seawater is relocated to another location where it causes SLR (along with the melted ice water that is also relocated).

Today's appendices show substantial SLC variation at seaports around the globe.

Links to the source databases, from which the recorded in situ measurements originate, emphasize the difficulty in responding to a non-uniform global SLC.

When responding to SLC, one port authority can have an opposite set of issues to confront compared to another port authority in another country.

III. Links to Appendices
The Cryosphere (areas within the Cyan colored lines)
SLF Seaport locations (red squares)
The following table has the links to the countries with their seaports and with their SLC data (countries are listed alphabetically):

Single-Coastline
Countries
Multi-Coastline
Countries
Appendix: A - CAppendix: A - C
Appendix: D - GAppendix: D - G
Appendix: H - LAppendix: H - L
Appendix: M - OAppendix: M - O
Appendix: P - TAppendix: P - T
Appendix: U - ZAppendix: U -Z

IV. Closing Comments

The "Seaports With Sea Level Change" series has been improved with this update.

The IPCC has issued a new report: "IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate" (SROCC, PDF).

The previous post in this series is here.

Dr. Jerry Mitrovica



Shorter video:

at ~31:14: "By taking the [global] average you're assuming something, and you're assuming it implicitly. You're assuming what we call the bathtub model." - Dr. Mitrovica



SC Appendix Sgl A-C

This is an appendix to: Seaports With Sea Level Change - 6

Country: Argentina, Coastal Id: 860

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Mar del Plata AR MDQ8605305
2Buenos Aires AR BUE8605305
3Concepcion del Uruguay AR COU8605305
4Necochea AR NEC8605305


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1BUENOS AIRES1578605305
2QUEQUEN2238605305
3MAR DEL PLATA (NAVAL BASE)8198605305
4PALERMO8328605305
5MAR DEL PLATA (PUERTO)8578605305
6ISLA MARTIN GARCIA8648605305
7RIO SANTIAGO8978605305
8MAR DE AJO15428605305


Summary for Argentina (Coastline Code: 860, WOD Zone: 5305):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~17,126.4 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~13,598.4 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,785.3 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~12,435 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~5,983.7 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~1,025.51 km (SLF)

SLC: 1st yr (1905) 7,033.33 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,133.62 RLR {+100.295 mm total}

1) Patagonia's SLF influence diminishes the SLR total (it would be higher);
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~27.0797 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Argentina) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Bahia Blanca AR BHI8605306
2Rosario AR ROS8605306
3Santa Fe AR SFN8605306


(Argentina) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1ROSALES8708605306


Summary for Argentina (Coastline Code: 860, WOD Zone: 5306):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~17,507.4 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~13,980.6 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,829.7 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~12,773.4 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~5,679.06 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~555.313 km (SLF)

SLC: 1st yr (1957) 6,936.5 RLR --> final yr (1970) 7,029.32 RLR {+92.82 mm total}

1) Patagonia's SLF influence diminishes the SLR total (it would be higher);
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~25.0614 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Argentina) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Comodoro Rivadavia AR CRD8605406


(Argentina) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1COMODORO RIVADAVIA1818605406
2PUERTO DESEADO1858605406
3PUERTO MADRYN5018605406
4PIRAMIDE8678605406


Summary for Argentina (Coastline Code: 860, WOD Zone: 5406):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~17,688.5 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~14,681.4 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~13,450.3 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~13,194.1 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~5,033.08 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~457.041 km (SLF)

SLC: 1st yr (1944) 6,910 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,151.96 RLR {+241.96 mm total}

1) Patagonia's SLF influence diminishes the SLR total (it would be higher);
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~65.3292 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Argentina) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Ushuaia AR USH8605506
2Rio Gallegos AR RGL8605506


(Argentina) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1USHUAIA I8748605506
2USHUAIA II12718605506


Summary for Argentina (Coastline Code: 860, WOD Zone: 5506):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~17,248.9 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~15,805.4 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~14,585.1 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~13,996.6 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~3,912.63 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~1,536.64 km (SLF)

SLC: 1st yr (1957) 6,903 RLR --> final yr (2006) 6,954 RLR {+51 mm total}

1) Patagonia's SLF influence diminishes the SLR total (it would be higher);
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~13.77 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Australia, Coastal Id: 680

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Darwin AU DRW6803113


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1DARWIN9356803113
2MILNER BAY (GROOTE EYLANDT)11606803113


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3113):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Patagonia: ~13,595.7 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~13,129.8 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~12,039.3 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~11,214.8 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~8,544.55 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~7,058.33 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1991) 6,967.46 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,132.71 RLR {+165.25 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~44.6175 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Townsville AU TSV6803114
2Cairns AU CNS6803114


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1TOWNSVILLE I6376803114
2KARUMBA8356803114
3CAIRNS9536803114
4WEIPA11576803114
5BOOBY ISLAND12686803114
6INCE POINT13006803114
7GOODS ISLAND13686803114
8PORT DOUGLAS 214716803114
9CAPE FERGUSON14926803114
10MOURILYAN HARBOUR16296803114
11LUCINDA16306803114
12TURTLE HEAD17496803114


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3114):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~13,343.9 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~12,964.8 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~12,446.3 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~10,795.7 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~8,336.99 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~7,964.07 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1959) 6,865.88 RLR --> final yr (2018) 6,940.72 RLR {+74.84 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~20.2068 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Mackay AU MKY6803214


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1MACKAY5646803214
2HAY POINT12466803214
3SHUTE HARBOUR 215696803214
4BOWEN II20746803214


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3214):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~13,952.8 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~13,150.6 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~12,172.8 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~11,069.5 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~8,767.91 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~7,709.96 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1960) 6,845.67 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,074.72 RLR {+229.05 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~61.8435 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Brisbane AU BNE6803215


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1YAMBA3106803215
2BALLINA3196803215
3BRISBANE (WEST INNER BAR)8226803215
4GLADSTONE8256803215
5BUNDABERG BURNETT HEADS11546803215
6EVANS HEAD12296803215
7MOOLOOLABA 214936803215
8GOLD COAST SEAWAY 217046803215
9ROSSLYN BAY17606803215
10PORT ALMA20726803215
11URANGAN II20736803215
12BRUNSWICK HEADS23106803215
13TWEED HEADS23146803215
14TWEED ENTRANCE SOUTH23196803215


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3215):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~14,606.5 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~13,887.2 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~11,452 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~11,386.1 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~9,524.29 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~7,030.28 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1959) 7,005.5 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,091.64 RLR {+86.1383 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~23.2573 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Fremantle AU FRE6803311


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1FREMANTLE1116803311
2BUNBURY8346803311
3ALBANY9576803311
4HILLARYS17616803311


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3311):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~15,180.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~14,037.5 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~13,825.3 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~11,769.8 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~8,048.59 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~6,332.21 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1897) 6,568.79 RLR --> final yr (2018) 6,922.38 RLR {+353.585 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~95.468 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Adelaide AU PAE6803313


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1PORT PIRIE2166803313
2PORT LINCOLN2306803313
3BEACHPORT3046803313
4PORT WALLAROO3836803313
5THEVENARD3866803313
6FRANKLIN HARBOR4026803313
7SECOND VALLEY4436803313
8PORT ADELAIDE (OUTER HARBOR)4486803313
9STENHOUSE BAY4926803313
10WHYALLA4936803313
11KINGSTON5156803313
12EDITHBURG5166803313
13PORT AUGUSTA5746803313
14AMERICAN RIVER6316803313
15BRIGHTON6776803313
16VICTOR HARBOUR10696803313
17WHYALLA III13676803313
18WALLAROO II14206803313
19PORT STANVAC15066803313
20PORT GILES15506803313


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3313):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~15,521.1 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~14,456.5 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,959.9 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~11,207.9 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~9,193.84 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~6,162.84 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1927) 7,013.62 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,090.46 RLR {+76.84 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~20.7468 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Melbourne AU MEL6803314
2Geelong AU GEX6803314


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1EDEN8336803314
2PORT MACDONNELL I8716803314
3STONY POINT10336803314
4PORTLAND15476803314
5LORNE18366803314


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3314):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~15,904.2 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~14,963.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,937.8 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~10,633 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~9,863.1 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~5,775.34 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1957) 6,979.5 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,097.28 RLR {+117.78 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~31.8006 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Sydney AU SYD6803315


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1SYDNEY FORT DENISON656803315
2SYDNEY FORT DENISON 21966803315
3NEWCASTLE III2676803315
4NEWCASTLE I3206803315
5CAMP COVE5496803315
6COFF'S HARBOUR7996803315
7LORD HOWE ISLAND8186803315
8PORT KEMBLA8316803315
9NEWCASTLE V8376803315
10NEWCASTLE II13356803315
11COFFS HARBOUR III23116803315
12JERVIS BAY II23126803315
13PORT MACQUARIE23136803315
14ULLADULLA HARBOUR23156803315
15PORT STEPHENS (TOMAREE)23166803315
16SHOAL BAY23206803315


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3315):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~15,294.2 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~14,552.5 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,067.6 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~10,818.5 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~9,955.31 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~6,344.65 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1886) 6,918.92 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,040.09 RLR {+121.169 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~32.7155 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Australia) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Devonport AU DPO6803414
2Hobart AU HBA6803414


(Australia) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1BURNIE6836803414
2HOBART8386803414
3DEVONPORT11186803414
4SPRING BAY12166803414
5LOW HEAD20716803414


Summary for Australia (Coastline Code: 680, WOD Zone: 3414):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Greenland: ~16,303.1 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~15,412.2 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~13,144.4 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~10,313.7 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~10,169.3 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~5,366.41 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1987) 6,893 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,136.4 RLR {+243.395 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~65.7167 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Bahamas, Coastal Id: 941

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Nassau BS NAS9417207
2Freeport BS FPO9417207


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1SETTLEMENT POINT16469417207
2SETTLEMENT POINT A19289417207


Summary for Bahamas (Coastline Code: 941, WOD Zone: 7207):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,059.2 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,977.6 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~7,613.32 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,219.94 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~5,798.82 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~5,658.29 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1985) 6,947 RLR --> final yr (2016) 7,073.77 RLR {+126.77 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~34.2279 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Bahrain, Coastal Id: 482

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Mina Salman BH MIN4821205
2Sitra BH SIT4821205


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1MINA SULMAN14944821205


Summary for Bahrain (Coastline Code: 482, WOD Zone: 1205):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Patagonia: ~14,221.6 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,926 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~10,590.2 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~7,215.07 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~6,052.1 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~3,868.07 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1979) 6,948.55 RLR --> final yr (2007) 7,030.57 RLR {+82.02 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~22.1454 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Bangladesh, Coastal Id: 510

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Mongla BD MGL5101208


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1HIRON POINT14515101208
2KHEPUPARA14545101208


Summary for Bangladesh (Coastline Code: 510, WOD Zone: 1208):


SLC: 1st yr (1977) 7,158 RLR --> final yr (2003) 7,127.54 RLR {-30.46 mm total}

Checking the reason for {-30.46 mm} of SLF in Zone 1208:

Zone 1208 is a Cyrosphere location.

The GLIMS glacier count recorded
for Zone 1208 is ~1,394.

Consider land level changes as needed.


(Bangladesh) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Chittagong BD CGP5101209


(Bangladesh) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1COX'S BAZAAR14765101209
2CHARCHANGA14965101209
3CHITTAGONG A21965101209


Summary for Bangladesh (Coastline Code: 510, WOD Zone: 1209):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Patagonia: ~17,163.1 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,452.1 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~10,035 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~8,711.83 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,291.76 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~1,456.92 km (SLF)

SLC: 1st yr (1978) 6,921.5 RLR --> final yr (2016) 7,089.75 RLR {+168.25 mm total}

1) Third Pole's SLF influence diminishes the SLR total (it would be higher);
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~45.4275 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Belgium, Coastal Id: 160

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Brussels BE BRU1601500
2Zeebrugge BE ZEE1601500
3Antwerp BE ANR1601500
4Ghent BE GNE1601500
5Liege BE LGG1601500


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1OOSTENDE4131601500
2ZEEBRUGGE4701601500
3NIEUWPOORT4891601500


Summary for Belgium (Coastline Code: 160, WOD Zone: 1500):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Antarctica: ~15,707.5 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~12,337.5 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~7,305.21 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~6,864.5 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~3,261.35 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~3,066.38 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1937) 6,981.96 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,130.42 RLR {+148.457 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~40.0833 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Bermuda, Coastal Id: 950

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Hamilton BM BDA9507306
2St Georges BM SGE9507306


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1ST. GEORGES / ESSO PIER (BERMUDA)3689507306
2PAGET ISLAND8869507306


Summary for Bermuda (Coastline Code: 950, WOD Zone: 7306):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Antarctica: ~13,608.5 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~12,073 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~8,166.42 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~6,287.7 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~5,985.12 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~4,925.84 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1932) 6,920 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,108.96 RLR {+188.96 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~51.0192 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Brazil, Coastal Id: 874

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Fortaleza BR FOR8745003
2Recife BR REC8745003


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1RECIFE5568745003
2FORTALEZA5598745003


Summary for Brazil (Coastline Code: 874, WOD Zone: 5003):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,684.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~11,167.7 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~9,879.29 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~9,354.42 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~8,997.68 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~4,991.33 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1948) 6,885.66 RLR --> final yr (1968) 6,972.9 RLR {+87.23 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~23.5521 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Brazil) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Belem BR BEL8745004


(Brazil) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1BELEM5808745004
2SALINOPOLIS5898745004
3MADEIRA17368745004


Summary for Brazil (Coastline Code: 874, WOD Zone: 5004):


SLC: 1st yr (1949) 7,007.5 RLR --> final yr (2008) 6,933.21 RLR {-74.29 mm total}

Checking the reason for {-74.29 mm} of SLF in Zone 5004:

There is no Cryosphere location within 2,000 km.

So, the pseudo SLF could be due to land level change
and/or defective tide gauge records.




(Brazil) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Salvador BR SSA8745103


(Brazil) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1SALVADOR5788745103
2CANAVIEIRAS6998745103


Summary for Brazil (Coastline Code: 874, WOD Zone: 5103):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~14,421.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~11,840.4 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~10,841.5 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~9,933.14 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~8,416.55 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~4,097.94 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1949) 6,897.17 RLR --> final yr (1968) 6,927.88 RLR {+30.71 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~8.2917 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Brazil) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Vitoria BR VIX8745204
2Imbituba BR IBB8745204
3Rio De Janeiro BR RIO8745204
4Paranagua BR PNG8745204
5Santos BR SSZ8745204


(Brazil) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1IMBITUBA5428745204
2RIO DE JANEIRO5798745204
3CANANEIA7268745204
4ILHA FISCAL10328745204


Summary for Brazil (Coastline Code: 874, WOD Zone: 5204):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~15,636.8 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~12,403.9 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~12,114.3 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~11,102.8 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~7,254.09 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~2,739.48 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1948) 6,951 RLR --> final yr (2016) 7,040.08 RLR {+89.08 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~24.0516 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).



Country: Bulgaria, Coastal Id: 295

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Varna BG VAR2951402


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1BOURGAS3172951402
2VARNA3182951402


Summary for Bulgaria (Coastline Code: 295, WOD Zone: 1402):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Antarctica: ~14,772.1 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~13,352.3 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~8,681.82 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~5,337.46 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~4,806.5 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~3,987.65 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1929) 6,929.62 RLR --> final yr (1996) 7,053.93 RLR {+124.315 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~33.565 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Cape Verde, Coastal Id: 380

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Porto Grande CV PGR3807102


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1PORTO GRANDE (ST. VINCENT) 217693807102
2PALMEIRA19143807102


Summary for Cape Verde (Coastline Code: 380, WOD Zone: 7102):


SLC: 1st yr (1990) 7,133.75 RLR --> final yr (2016) 7,054.12 RLR {-79.63 mm total}

Checking the reason for {-79.63 mm} of SLF in Zone 7102:

There is no Cryosphere location within 2,000 km.

So, the pseudo SLF could be due to land level change
and/or defective tide gauge records.



Country: Cayman Islands, Coastal Id: 931

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Georgetown Grand Cayman KY GEC9317108


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1NORTH SOUND14229317108
2SOUTH SOUND14269317108


Summary for Cayman Islands (Coastline Code: 931, WOD Zone: 7108):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,911.9 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,153.2 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~8,076.91 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~6,844.36 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~6,654.94 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~6,215.01 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1976) 6,969.17 RLR --> final yr (1996) 6,977.98 RLR {+8.81 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~2.3787 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: China, Coastal Id: 610

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Zhanjiang CN ZHA6101211
2Xiamen CN XMN6101211
3Fuzhou CN FOC6101211
4Guangzhou CN CAN6101211


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1XIAMEN7276101211
2ZHAPO9336101211
3SHANWEI14066101211
4HAIKOU14286101211


Summary for China (Coastline Code: 610, WOD Zone: 1211):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Patagonia: ~17,919.3 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,477.5 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~9,050.57 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~8,971.23 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,762.67 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~2,720.49 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1954) 7,009.58 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,087.75 RLR {+78.17 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~21.1059 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(China) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Tianjin CN TSN6101311
2Lianyungang CN LYG6101311


(China) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1QINHUANGDAO6146101311
2TANGGU14036101311
3SHIJIUSUO14046101311
4LIANYUNGANG14056101311


Summary for China (Coastline Code: 610, WOD Zone: 1311):


SLC: 1st yr (1950) 7,119.42 RLR --> final yr (1994) 7,049.89 RLR {-69.5275 mm total}

Checking the reason for {-69.5275 mm} of SLF in Zone 1311:

Zone 1311 SLF is influenced by the Cryosphere area
of Zone 1310 (which is ~910.581 km away).

The GLIMS glacier count recorded for Zone 1310 is ~322.

Consider land level changes as needed.


(China) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Shanghai CN SHA6101312
2Nantong CN NTG6101312
3Dalian CN DLC6101312


(China) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1DALIAN7236101312
2YANTAI7316101312
3LUSI9796101312
4LAOHUTAN15136101312


Summary for China (Coastline Code: 610, WOD Zone: 1312):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Patagonia: ~19,068.7 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~14,106.7 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~7,505.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~7,197.13 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~6,337.88 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~2,839.46 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1954) 7,017.02 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,107.21 RLR {+90.19 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~24.3513 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).



Country: Congo, Coastal Id: 424

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Pointe Noire CG PNR4243001
2Boma ZR BOA4243001
3Banana ZR BNW4243001


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1POINTE NOIRE9384243001


Summary for Congo (Coastline Code: 424, WOD Zone: 3001):


SLC: 1st yr (1977) 6,981.23 RLR --> final yr (1979) 6,965.75 RLR {-15.48 mm total}

Checking the reason for {-15.48 mm} of SLF in Zone 3001:

There is no Cryosphere location within 2,000 km.

So, the pseudo SLF could be due to land level change
and/or defective tide gauge records.




Country: Croatia, Coastal Id: 280

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Rijeka Bakar HR RJK2801401
2Zadar HR ZAD2801401
3Dubrovnik HR DBV2801401
4Pula HR PUY2801401
5Ploce HR PLE2801401
6Split HR SPU2801401
7Sibenik HR SIB2801401
8Omisalj HR OMI2801401


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1SPLIT - GRADSKA LUKA3522801401
2BAKAR3532801401
3SPLIT RT MARJANA6852801401
4DUBROVNIK7602801401
5ROVINJ7612801401
6VIS-CESKA VILA15742801401
7GAZENICA15772801401
8ZLARIN15782801401
9SUCURAJ17062801401
10UBLI17182801401
11ZADAR18592801401
12PLOCE19452801401


Summary for Croatia (Coastline Code: 280, WOD Zone: 1401):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Antarctica: ~14,864.4 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~12,607 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~8,408.57 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~6,220.88 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~4,395 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~3,862.98 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1930) 7,018.12 RLR --> final yr (2018) 7,136.14 RLR {+118.02 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~31.8654 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Cuba, Coastal Id: 930

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Santiago de Cuba CU SCU9307107


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1GUANTANAMO BAY4189307107
2CABO CRUZ19109307107


Summary for Cuba (Coastline Code: 930, WOD Zone: 7107):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,749.6 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,218.4 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,904.75 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~6,825.16 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~6,493.51 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~6,433.82 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1937) 6,938.14 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,047.92 RLR {+109.78 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~29.6406 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Cuba) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Manzanillo CU MZO9307207
2Nuevitas CU NVT9307207


(Cuba) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1GIBARA5639307207
2MANZANILLO19349307207
3CASILDA II20219307207
4SANTIAGO DE CUBA22879307207
5NUEVITAS PUNTA PRACTICO22889307207


Summary for Cuba (Coastline Code: 930, WOD Zone: 7207):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,650 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,339.8 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,803.99 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~6,956.45 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~6,389.53 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~6,286.49 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1974) 7,007.86 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,033.95 RLR {+26.094 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~7.04538 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

(Cuba) Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Havana CU HAV9307208
2Matanzas CU QMA9307208


(Cuba) Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1CABO DE SAN ANTONIO12979307208
2ISABELA DE SAGUA19099307208
3MARIEL BOCA22869307208
4CAYO LOCO22899307208


Summary for Cuba (Coastline Code: 930, WOD Zone: 7208):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Third Pole: ~13,567.8 km (SLR)
Antarctica: ~12,511 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~7,742 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~7,209.14 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~6,318.83 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~5,874.3 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (1971) 6,947.25 RLR --> final yr (2017) 7,018.69 RLR {+71.4433 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~19.2897 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).


Country: Cyprus, Coastal Id: 315

Seaport Data:
List # Port LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1Paphos CY PFO3151303
2Larnaca CY LAT3151303
3Vassiliko CY VAS3151303
4Limassol CY LMS3151303
5Famagusta CY FMG3151303
6Akrotiri CY AKT3151303


Tide Gauge Data:
List # Station NameStn LinkCoastline CodeWOD Zone
1GIRNE19113151303


Summary for Cyprus (Coastline Code: 315, WOD Zone: 1303):

Distance from Zone's center to Cryosphere Locations & (SLC type):

Antarctica: ~13,939.9 km (SLR)
Patagonia: ~13,348.9 km (SLR)
Glacier Bay: ~9,563.94 km (SLR)
Greenland: ~5,752.52 km (SLR)
Third Pole: ~5,077.06 km (SLR)
Svalbard: ~4,855.05 km (SLR)

SLC: 1st yr (2000) 7,030 RLR --> final yr (2003) 7,052.25 RLR {+22.25 mm total}

1) There is no SLF influence on the SLR total;
2) Some land level changes may take place;
3) Ghost water amount of SLR total: ~6.0075 mm;
4) Third Pole Info (third largest Cryosphere area).

UPDATE: Cyprus tide gauge station FAMAGUSTA (#436) data was removed.