 |
| Fig. 1 Coastal Mystery Zones? |
I. General Hypotheticals
Are we supposed to 'doubt' scientific hypotheses or instead are we to properly test them?
How would we know how to test them?
It is important to note that some of the textbooks, papers, and conversations tell us that a valid hypothesis should inform anyone contemplating that hypothesis how to 'falsify' it (Theory of Falsification, Wikipedia Falsification, A hypothesis can’t be right unless it can be proven wrong).
II. Major Geological Hypothesis Falsified
In the previous post of this series, and in today's post, we are considering the coastal area "Coastal N. Pacific" (Fig. 1).
Today's post focuses on the hypothesis that the sea level change (Fig. 2) recorded by tide gauge stations all along that coastline is caused by geologic rather that oceanographic and cryosphere dynamics.
An 'event' in that area radically changed geologic scientific 'hypotheses' not by using a fallibility (is it falsifiable?) mechanism to test their geological assertions, but instead the 'event' did so by shaking up the joint:
"The magnitude 9.2 Great AlaskaEarthquake, which struck south-central Alaska at 5:36 p.m. on Friday, March 27, 1964, is the largest recorded earthquake in U.S. history and the second-largest earthquake recorded with modern instruments ... At first, geologists did not know how such a huge earthquake could have happened, because the prevailing theories of the day could not explain such a large movement ... Earth scientists now recognize that the 1964 Great Alaska Earthquake resulted from plate convergence ..."
(USGS, Scientific Impact of the Great Alaska Earthquake). You may be wondering what this has to do with sea level change, so let's get to it.
The oceanographic sea level change hypothesis, dating from about the time those tide gauge stations (Fig. 2) began measuring sea level in the Coastal N. Pacific, has stood the test of time however:
"To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances. The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward."
(On the West Side of Zero). In terms of the difficulty this is just Newton under the apple tree folks (Proof of Concept - 3).
III. Closing Comments
The graph lines in Fig. 2 show the sea level rise and fall along the Coastal N. Pacific as measured by tide gauge stations in that area since 1880.
So, is the land still rising and falling because of 'squishy dirt' or is the Glacier Bay Ice Sheet melting and releasing its heretofore captivated-by-gravity sea water?
I mention 'squishy dirt' because compression takes place where the bottom of the ice sheet makes contact with the land, which is made of 'squishy dirt' in some places and more solid dirt and even rock in some other places.
Since those compress and expand differently, or not at all in the case of the hardest rock, it is not likely that the compression and contraction along the coast is uniform to the point of having the 'hinge point' effect that an Ice Sheet melting forms.
Thus, any 'upheaval' is not going to be uniform either.
The Fig. 2 graph shows a uniform sea level change pattern in the sense that there is a uniform declining change from north to south until the 'hinge point' is reached, at which point sea level fall becomes sea level rise (or if one is looking at south to north, the sea level rise will become sea level fall at the hinge point).
The land-upheaval hypothesis cannot point to any hinge point caused by a material (dirt or rock change) at any hinge point such as an all granite surface changing into a squishy dirt surface.
 |
| Fig. 2 Tide Gauge Data |
Color codes for Fig. 2 graph lines:
WOD Zone 7311 = red
WOD Zone 7312 = green
WOD Zone 7412 = brown
WOD Zone 7512 = orchid
WOD Zone 7513 = deep blue
WOD Zone 7515 = cyan
WOD Zone 7614 = purple
WOD Zone 7615 = yellow
To my way of thinking about falsifying or accepting the geologist's hypothesis that the matter under the coastline of the Coastal N. Pacific is both rising and falling at the same time over the ~143 (~14 decades; ~1.5 centuries) to alter the sea level is an unacceptable hypothesis without drill holes near tide gauge stations all along that coastline.
The geology hypothesis folks are still in the same hypothesis quality state they were in when they got all shook up in 1964 by the quake.
And the tide gauge stations are still reporting Woodward's 1888 hypothesis test results since they began long, long ago.
That is, the in situ measurements from around the world (PSMSL), not just in the Coastal N. Pacific, over the centuries confirm Woodward 1888, and well as Dr. Mitrovica (see video below).
Where are the records of the deeps under the shore line showing that the material can be compressed and expanded at the rates they declare (The deepest hole we have ever dug, In a geologic triumph, scientists drill a window into Earth’s mantle).
The previous post in this series is here.
Professor Jerry X. Mitrovica on the gravity / axis bulge SLR issues we don't hear about often enough:
05:00 ... an ice sheet has mass, so it has a gravity effect on the sea water around it.
18:15 ... if glaciers melt in Alaska, sea level around it will drop (see Fig. 3 above).
14:20 ... the scientific literature points out that sea level does not rise nor fall the same all around the globe (it is called "the European problem").
19:15 ... unevenness of SLR / SLF informs which ice sheet is melting (e.g. in Greenland or in Antarctica).
