 |
| Could that be true? |
Hopefully the graphs in today's appendix will help dispel the mythological notion that sea level change is primarily the result of thermal expansion.
I am talking about mythology such as these typical examples:
"About half of the measured global sea level rise on Earth is from warming waters and thermal expansion" (this)
"The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean" (this)
"When most people think of sea-level rise the first thing that comes to mind is melting glaciers and icebergs, however ... the significant ... lesser known ... is actually thermal expansion" (this)
"Among the primary causes of rise in sea level is a phenomenon known as thermal expansion" (this)
"a major factor of mean sea-level rise [is] through thermal expansion of the sea water" (this)
"Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the sea-level rise over the past 25 years is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space" (this)
"Thermal expansion is the scientific term for expanding water, and it is responsible for about one-third of global sea level rise" (this)
"thermal expansion ... is responsible for one-third of sea level rise to date" (this)
"The two major causes of global mean sea level rise are the expansion of ocean water as it warms (thermal expansion) and the added water from land-based ice" (this)
"Between 1993 and 2018, melting ice sheets and glaciers accounted for 44% of sea level rise, with another 42% resulting from thermal expansion of water" (this)
Today's graphs (Appendix State SLC) are generated from ocean measurements in various US States that have coastlines with tide gauge stations.
Tide gauge stations are where sea level changes are measured then recorded in the PSMSL database.
Additionally, ocean water temperatures and ocean salinity from various depths were also acquired from the World Ocean Database.
The graphs detail the stark difference between the above quotes and the two graph lines that were calculated according to TEOS-10 standards (The US States of Sea Level Change - 7).
If you can't tell where the thermal expansion graph line is, look near the "0" position (i.e. the line that is the color orchid).
When we don't have the wherewithal to determine something for ourselves, we naturally have to trust in or have faith in something or someone else.
That does not always give us the correct answer.
"I find myself believing all sorts of things for which I do not
possess evidence: that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, that my car keeps stalling because the carburetor needs to be rebuild, that mass media threaten democracy, that slums cause emotional disorders, that my irregular heart beat is premature ventricular contraction, that students' grades are not correlated with success in the nonacademic world, that nuclear power plants are not safe (enough) ...
The list of things I believe, though I have no evidence for the truth of them, is, if not infinite, virtually endless. And I am finite. Though I can readily imagine what I would have to do to obtain the evidence that would support any one of my beliefs, I cannot imagine being able to do this for all of my beliefs. I believe too much; there is too much relevant evidence (much of it available only after extensive, specialized training); intellect is too small and life too short.
What are we as epistemologists to say about all these beliefs? If I, without the available evidence, nevertheless believe a proposition, are my belief and I in that belief necessarily irrational or non-rational? Is my belief then mere belief (Plato's right opinion)? If not, why not? Are there other good reasons for believing propositions, reasons which do not reduce to having evidence for the truth of those
propositions? What would these reasons look like?"
(The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?). That is quoted from the Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 82, No. 7.
The previous post in this series is here.
