Tuesday, February 20, 2018

The Authoritarianism of Climate Change - 3

Putin on the Ritz
I. Background

So far in this series I have not addressed the question of the proper way to respond, in terms of considering multiple ways of responding, to the ramifications of global warming induced climate change (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change, 2).

In other words, what is the proper way to respond, on a local scale, to the global warming induced climate change induced changes in sea level?

Should a local community or a local seaport authority be dictated to ("You shall ignore sea level change because it is a hoax!" ... "You shall adapt to sea level change exactly in the manner we dictate!") or is another way better ("Each local coastal area shall respond to sea level change as their local governments determine based upon the votes of the people in that local area") ?

The stakes are quite high (Hansen et al, 2016).

It would seem, at first blush, that allowing local ways of resolving problems is a better approach:
"With such a serious sea-level rise on the horizon, experts are increasingly looking at its potential impacts on coasts to facilitate local adaptation planning. This is a more complex issue than one might think, because different stretches of coast can be affected in very different ways. First of all, the sea-level response to global warming will not be globally uniform, since factors like changes in ocean currents (Levermann et al 2005) and the changing gravitational pull of continental ice (Mitrovica et al 2001) affect the local rise. Secondly, superimposed on the climatic trend is natural variability in sea level, which regionally can be as large as the climatic signal on multi-decadal timescales. Over the past decades, sea level has dropped in sizable parts of the world ocean, although it has of course risen in global mean (IPCC 2007). Thirdly, local land uplift or subsidence affects the local sea-level change relative to the coast, both for natural reasons (post-glacial isostatic adjustment centred on regions that were covered by ice sheets during the last ice age) and artificial ones (e.g., extraction of water or oil as in the Gulf of Mexico). Finally, local vulnerability to sea-level rise depends on many factors." [cf. Tamisiea & Mitrovica]
(Sea-level Rise: Towards Understanding Local Vulnerability, emphasis added). But what if a local decision will result in negative impacts on an adjacent local area?

Would the proper response be to increase the decision making scope up to the next higher level (e.g. from city authority up to county authority, or from county authority up to state authority, or from state authority up to national authority, or finally, from national authority up to United Nations authority)?

Who would decide when the current authority should be replaced with a higher authority?

II. Back In The USA & "USSR"

The response in the USA, as in the USSR, is to dictate the response from the Administrative Branch of Government (e.g. Putin & Trump).

The U.S. President has ordered the military to stop saying that global warming induced climate change is a national security threat, his cabinet is doing the same, and more, in areas of their jurisdiction (even wiping official documents and websites clear of any mention of things relating to climate change).

At the same time, states are rejecting that federal approach saying they will have a different response.

Some lawsuits at the city level of governance have invoked the judicial branch (courts) of governance (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement, 2, cf. JULIANA et al. v U.S.).

Russia has the same seemingly contradictory stance on the issue, which like in the USA, will have an impact on how the problem is handled:
"Many influential voices here routinely debunked climate change, and some Russian newspapers in recent years chalked up climate variability to a mythical U.S. weapon aimed at Russia, or as a foreign plot aimed at Russia's energy exports.
...
Earlier this month, Russia's government fired the head of its weather forecasting agency, the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, or Roshydromet. Alexander Frolov, 65, had surpassed the mandatory retirement age for civil servants, but the real reason he was forced out, observers say, was Roshydromet's failure to anticipate the late-May storm's intensity and warn Muscovites accordingly. His ousting also sent a message to the environment ministry, Roshydromet's overseer. The state prosecutor's office, according to the newspaper Kommersant, demanded that the ministry take steps to increase the accuracy of forecasts in light of a changing climate.

The new charge to the environment ministry reflects a sea change in Russia's views about climate change and how the nation must respond. Politicians have acknowledged that extreme weather events have doubled over the past 25 years, to 590 in 2016, and that average temperatures are rising, particularly in the Arctic. Yet until recently, tackling climate change was a low priority for the federal government. One reason is complacence, because Russia's greenhouse gas emissions have already plummeted since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another is political: Russia's economy depends heavily on pumping oil and gas out of the ground."
(Russia wants to protect itself from climate change?). Unfortunately Trump and Putin have yet another thing in common it would seem.

III. Conclusion

The issue, then, involves more than agreeing on the science, it also involves agreeing on the governmental dynamics to use while reacting to the problem.

IMO, that makes it a much more dangerous situation.

The previous post in this series is here.




Monday, February 19, 2018

On the West Side of Zero - 2

Fig. 1 On The Record
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Sea level change is a problem for all coastlines, and the seaports on them (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

But the solution to that problem at one port is the problem at another port:
According to the graphics and information provided by Professor Mitrovica of Harvard, all of the sea ports in Iceland, shown in Fig. 1, will go dry (see video below).

The same can be said of all the ports in Greenland (Fig. 2).

Not to mention that all of the sea ports in Australia will experience different levels of rise (N. Australia) or fall (S. Australia), or stay at the same level (Mid Australia), depending on their distance from Antarctica (compare Fig. 4 with Fig. 5).
(Peak Sea Level - 2). As today's graphs show, "change" is not a word that has only one meaning.

Today's graphs show that some ports will experience sea level fall (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

In 1888, a scientist named Robert Woodward published a paper indicating that the beginning of sea level change would be sea level fall near ice sheets (e.g. Greenland, Antarctica) and large glacier fields (e.g. Glacier Bay, Alaska).

His paper has been ignored by most modern scientists, but not by the better ones:
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, quoting Dr. J. Mitrovica). Not heeding or acknowledging that seminal paper was a huge mistake.

Why?

Because it indicated what would be a sure sign that ice sheets were beginning to melt (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4; NASA Busts The Ghost).

Not only that, since the water that was being released from ice sheet gravity had to go to other places, it would also indicate that sea level rise was taking place in other places at the same time.

Dr. Mitrovica, in the videos below, mentions that scientists were perplexed with tide gauge station readings and called that development "the European problem" because "they didn't have a clue" about what was going on (circa 2000, 2001).

To this day, many if not most, published papers do not mention that sea level is falling or that "the missing water" is going to other locations on Earth to cause sea level rise there (Concern for seaports).

That is a misstep which led to the "thermal expansion must be the cause of most sea level rise" assumption or hypothesis (Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 4).

But the oil industry, Oil-Qaeda, knew very well what they were doing to ice sheets, even bragging about it in a 1962 full page ad in Life Magazine (Humble Oil-Qaeda).

The only thing Oil-Qaeda has changed since then is that they have become criminally insane (The Criminally Insane Epoch Arises, 2, 3, 4), and murderous (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3).

As the public wises up, some in government are trying to do something about it (Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

The civil courts are active, but the results remain unknown (Oilfluenza, Affluenza, and Disgorgement, 2).

Especially since Oil-Qaeda impaired the 2016 election so as to place their operatives in the seats of power for all to see (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 5, Beware of the Sycophant Epidemic).

The previous post in this series is here.





Saturday, February 17, 2018

The "Genes" of Culture In Civilizations - 2

Is There Higher Ground?
I. Background

This series began in May of 2015 (The "Genes" of Culture In Civilizations).

At that time, among other things, I quoted a notable historian who at one time in modern history was the most quoted historian on some general interest subjects.

Nevertheless, he fell out of favor when he began to criticize current civilization.

After he had studied the rise and fall of twenty-six previous civilizations on Earth, he (the way I describe his criticism) began to indicate that our current civilization still had the "genes" of those civilizations that had gone down in flames ("committed suicide" or were "murdered").

And that is not good, because the picture he painted is looking more and more like an accurate portrayal of what we face now.

Here is a quote from his writings, along with a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica about his work:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."
...
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces."
(Stockholm Syndrome: The Declaration of Intellectual Dependence). The three "genes" I am talking about in today's post are: 1) "nationalism", 2) "militarism", and 3) "the tyranny of a despotic minority".

II. The Nationalism Gene

There are several facets, manifestations, and definitions relating to the concept of nationalism.

I want to keep in line with the characteristics of nationalism that Toynbee (and others) saw as self destructive to civilizations down through time (“The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson).

So, for now let's start with a description of American Nationalism as manifested in its current 21st Century characteristics:
"When the nation demands the supreme loyalty of its citizens, the freedom of the individual may be sacrificed to the welfare of the state. In this elevation of the state there is the concomitant denigration of the outsider and the temptation to advance the nation at the expense of other nations. As nationalism evolved in the nineteenth century, it assumed the ugly forms of imperialism, racism, and totalitarianism; it helped to stimulate world wars in the twentieth century."
(Defining "American" Nationalism, Encylopedia, emphasis added). Current acid tests which fit that description (to name a few) in US culture are: whether or not you believe that the USA is "exceptional," whether or not you want to keep others out via border walls, whether or not you favor halting immigration; whether or not you want to care for those with health needs,  whether or not you would favor engaging in nuclear war, and whether or not you elevate national economics over the environment necessary for all life to survive,

III. The Militarism Gene

A Canadian professor who passed away last fall wrote:
The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including the United Kingdom, France and Russia.

I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.
...
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).
(Global Research). The US also has more mass killings than the other nations put together, and the most guns to do it with (Why the US has the most mass shootingsHow US gun culture compares with the world in five charts).

See also Will The Military Become The Police?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Technically, this all boils down to neo-feudalism (American Feudalism, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

IV. The Despotic Minority Gene

This suicidal state of affairs is not what the founders envisioned:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2, quoting James Madison). The state of war is what the despotic minority has envisioned  (War is the Highway 61 of the 1%).

V. We Are "Killing It" Is An American Saying
That Means "Doing Exceptionally Well"

Meanwhile, the odds are killing it unexceptional:
"A recent study of World Health Organization data published in the American Journal of Medicine that found that, among high-income nations, 91 percent of children younger than 15 who were killed by bullets lived in the United States.

And the trends are only growing more dire.

On average, two dozen children are shot every day in the United States, and in 2016 more youths were killed by gunfire — 1,637 — than during any previous year this millennium."
(Washington Post, emphasis added). The despotic minority won the last national election with the help of our preznit's favorite leader's operatives.

Our preznit suffers from nationalism, militarism, and a lust for praise from the despotic minority that elected him (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).

Go figure.

VI. Conclusion

As a culture, we have been taught the falsehood that we have, as Americans, exceptional genes above the genes of all others.

That is pure myth (On The Origin of Genieology, 2, 3).

Our culture is infected with the three "genes" discussed in today's post.

Which is how we citizens become infected, if we do not develop antigens (Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala, 2, 3, 4).

The previous post in this series is here.

"The word 'wild' applies to the words 'you' and 'me' ... " - Wild Life



Friday, February 16, 2018

Hot, Warm, & Cold Thermal Facts: Tidewater-Glaciers - 4

ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN
After focusing on one paper from a peer reviewed journal cited in a previous Dredd Blog post (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 33), I read other relevant papers that had also been cited in that peer reviewed paper.

I went through those published papers in other scientific journals (papers that had been cited to support the hypotheses concerning thermal expansion as 'a' or 'the' major factor in sea level rise).

What I found out isn't pretty.

The oldest of that peer reviewed paper trail says:
"We present estimates of the component of this sea level rise caused by thermal expansion of the ocean ... We estimate the component of sea level rise that is caused by thermal expansion ..." - Abstract

"The estimate of sea level rise caused by the melt water from nonpolar glaciers is [negligible] ... it is thought ... that the combined contribution from the melting of ice from Antarctia and Greenland to sea level rise is small; thus a major component of sea level rise must be caused by thermal expansion of the ocean." - Introduction
(Church et al., 1991, emphasis added). Their logic was that it "must be caused by thermal expansion" because Greenland and Antarctica melt is "small."

We know that is not the case, not even close to the case.

They must not have known that Greenland had been melting for at least a century at the time they wrote their paper (Proof of Concept - 5).

They must not have known that a scientist had published a paper over a hundred years prior to theirs, declaring that sea level would fall near large ice sheets (Greenland & Antarctica) as the ice sheet melted:
To our knowledge, Woodward (1888) was the first to demonstrate that the rapid melting of an ice sheet would lead to a geographically variable sea level change. Woodward (1888) assumed a rigid, non-rotating Earth, and therefore self-gravitation of the surface load was the only contributor to the predicted departure from a geographically uniform (i.e. eustatic) sea level rise. This departure was large and counter-intuitive. Specifically, sea level was predicted to fall within ∼2000 km of a melting ice sheet, and to rise with progressively higher amplitude at greater distances. The physics governing this redistribution is straightforward.
(The World According To Measurements - 5). Thus, they were clueless that Greenland began melting and causing sea level fall near it, while at the same time causing sea level rise at the location where the Greenland seawater was eventually relocated to (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

All of the papers were based on models, all ignoring the Woodward paper:
"Estimates of sea level rise during the period 1856-1991 due to thermal expansion are presented. The estimates are based on an ocean model ... " - Abstract
(De Wolde et al., 1995, emphasis added). There is no valid reason for declaring that thermal expansion is 'a' or 'the' major cause without competent evidence.

Another paper quoted as original source material for the thermal expansion hypotheses was "Warrick, R. A., et al., Changes in sea level, in Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, edited by J. T. Houghton et al., pp. 359–405, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 1996".

I could not find the paper itself, but I found this comment about it in another paper:
"Observational estimates of interior temperature changes in the ocean reported by Warrick et al. (1996) were limited, and estimates of thermal expansion were made from simple ocean models.
(Changes in Sea Level - IPCC, at 643, emphasis added). The implication is that there was no prior work to give them clues.

That is not true.

There was a scientific paper (Woodward 1888 linked to above) that had been published a century before they estimated with models, explaining that if the sea level is falling near an ice sheet that ice sheet is melting.

They ignored that science.

The final paper cited did not use a model, it used two models coupled together (Stouffer and Manabe, 1999).

And so here we are after an 1888 paper indicated we should look for sea level fall to find evidence for ice sheet melting.

The graphs at Fig. 3 - Fig. 19, here, show that sea level fall was also well known for over a hundred years prior to all of those papers guesstimating thermal expansion.

"None so deaf as those that will not hear. None so blind as those that will not see." - Matthew Henry

The previous post in this series is here.