Friday, August 14, 2015

Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 48

Fig. 1 Grasping the SLC concept
I. Background

It is Friday, so let's rebel.


Regular readers know that in recent Dredd Blog posts I have tended to consider the dynamics of sea level change (SLC).

Regular readers also know that SLC is composed of both sea level rise (SLR) as well as sea level fall (SLF).

If you want to read the latest developments in this ongoing narrative, a brief historical timeline of the cycle of recent SLC (past century) has been posted on Ecocosmology Blog (A Timeline of Endangered Sea Ports).

II. Today's Goal - Simplification

Today, in this post I want to show that the technical calculation of SLC at the location where you live and work is, among other things, a function of observing tides.

Tidal charts are quite accurate, because the Moon, the Sun, and the Earth are stable in terms of the gravitational, rotational, and orbital astrophysics involved in calculating tides.

There are many places to look up tidal times and tidal intensities that apply to your particular location (e.g. Salt Water Tides, NOAA - Tides), assuming that you are near enough to the ocean to care, or that you realize your country's future will be impacted by these dynamics.

High and low tides are caused by lunar and solar gravity "pulling" on the ocean (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

Both of those gravities are very stable and reliable forces, even though they are constantly changing sea levels.

They are well understood, busily changing regional sea levels at any given time of day or night.

Since SLC is a similar, albeit slower dynamic, why reinvent the wheel?

III. Calculating The Impact of Global Warming Induced SLC

Let's continue with the goal of simplification (complications are discussed in Section IV below).

After we look up the relevant tide information (high, slack, low) for a specific date, time,
Fig. 2 SLC regional impact
and location, then we can add or subtract ongoing SLC values.

In this case I mean SLC values that are caused by ongoing global warming induced ice sheet melt and disintegration (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR? - 8).

But first, we must consider the "moving parts" part of this "simple process."

One reason for that is because SLC is happening slowly, happening from two major sources, and the impact that each has on a given location varies with time.

Not only that, they both have an SLR and SLF impact that is constantly changing as the ice sheets melt, and once again, SLR or SLF and how much, depends on our location (lat. & long.) on the globe (The Agnotology of Sea Level Rise Via Ice Melt).

The location where I am may be having an SLF phenomenon at the same time your location may be having an SLR phenomenon, so we must know which situation (SLR or SLF?) apples to our location before we can apply Fig. 2 values as follows:
1) SLC (SLR or SLF) computation is the addition or subtraction of a percentage to, or from, a tidal value derived from a tidal chart.

2) The addition to, or the subtraction from, existing high or low tide values derived from the tidal chart, will assist by conforming the past realities to the new observations of SLC.

3) The range of percentages for SLR is 0% to 100% (Fig. 2).

4) The range of percentages for SLF is -0% to -100% (Fig. 2).
Now that we have done the easy part, let's consider the difficult part.

IV. Some Complications Can't Be Avoided

Fig. 3 Greenland induced SLC
First, notice the SLC graphic depictions in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.

They are individualized concepts isolated, for simplicity, to one particular ice sheet.

Fig. 3 depicts the Greenland ice sheet induced SLC, after all of its ice has melted or otherwise disintegrated to end up in the northern seas.

On the other hand, Fig. 4 depicts the Antarctica ice sheet induced SLC, after all of its
Fig. 4 Antarctica induced SLC
ice has melted or otherwise disintegrated to end up in the southern seas.

Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are fine and helpful for contemplating the barest nature of the two ice sheets, and for contemplating what SLC associated with them will look like in the future, however, they are both fanciful notions in other fundamental respects.

Still, those two depictions are fine for an elementary or preliminary contemplation of SLC.

The distortion involved with using them individually is that both of those ice sheets are melting at the same time, so their SLR and SLF impacts blend together (excluding them individually from anything other than elementary or preliminary contemplation).

Furthermore, each ice sheet impacts the other's SLR and SLF to some degree, and the degree of each ice sheet's impact on the other is constantly changing.

That constant change is due to the constant, but sometimes almost imperceptible, ice sheet melt and disintegration.

Take a look at two graphs here at the heading "A Sea Level Change Software Model".

Currently, as those graphs show, Greenland is the prime contributor of ice sheet melt and disintegration, however, Antarctica will overcome that to become the prime contributor of ice sheet melt and disintegration in the future.

V. Driving Public Works and Port Authority Officials Crazy

When port authority officials and public works departments know exactly what is going on, they move at the speed of snails (New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage - 12).

When they contemplate a project, not knowing if the SLC they face is going to be SLR or SLF or both at different times, they will tend to move at the speed of snails going backwards.

VI. Conclusion

Civilization is facing a problem that is a shape-shifter, a liquid terminator, and something never before faced.

And, it is a problem that will only get worse with time (Sea Level Study, Princeton, Guardian, Vice News).

As President Obama said recently: "There is such a thing as too late when it comes to Climate Change."

Have a good weekend anyway.

Heart of Gold, by Neil Young (acoustic version):

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Peak Sea Level - 3

Fig. 1 Ice sheet & its ice shelf
I have been working on the SLC software, but I ran into a hard place surrounded by rocks, so I thought I would come up for air to rest.

And to do today's post before it becomes tomorrow.

I am putting this post in this series because I ran across an article by one of Professor Mitrovica's associates who worked on several peer reviewed papers concerning gravity loss as ice sheets melt.

And its impact on sea level rise (SLR) and sea level fall (SLF).

I think I found a flaw in their hypothesis, albeit perhaps a minor one.

The specific assertion they make is that if the W. Antarctica ice sheet melts it will cause SLF near the coast of Antarctica, and outward from there.

So far, so good.

My concern was that they followed that up with "that will stabilize the ice sheet."

That will move the warm water away from contact with the bottom of the ice sheet was perhaps what they were thinking.

Their particular hypothesis is set forth in an article as follows:
"Scientists have long been concerned that the melting of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet could become a self-reinforcing process, with the released water raising sea levels, leading to more melting, and so on.

Their concern stems from the fact that much of the land on which the ice rests is actually below sea level, forming a bowl sealed from the ocean by the immense weight of the ice above it. Should seawater infiltrate that bowl, scientists are worried it could float the ice at its edge, starting a runaway collapse that could raise the global sea level as much as 16 feet.

Now, however, Harvard researchers have a rare bit of what passes for good news on the global warming front: If the West Antarctic ice sheet melts, it will have the seemingly contradictory effect of lowering sea levels nearby, actually stabilizing the sheet."
(Harvard Gazette, emphasis added). I thought that might be a misunderstanding on the part of the person who wrote the article, because Natalya Gomez is quoted in the last sentence as also having said:
The gravity-sea level interaction “is not going to halt the collapse of the ice sheet, but it’s going to slow the rate of collapse,” Gomez said.
(ibid). I do also remember Professor Mitrovica saying, in the video in the previous post of
Fig. 2  Undermined ice shelf
this series, that he had good news--the drop in sea level around W. Antarctica would slow down or halt the ice sheet collapse.

But I don't think that is the case.

Notice Fig. 1, a typical graphic which depicts an ice sheet with its ice shelf extended over the ocean water near the coast (that graphic is taken from the second video below which shows "grounding drift").

Now notice Fig. 2 which is a modified version of Fig. 1, showing that if the sea drops in response to a loss of gravity as a result of loss of ice sheet mass, then the ice shelf is likely to lose its support and therefore break away from the ice sheet.

Since the ice shelf is a buttress against the ice sheet flow towards the sea, IMO the glaciers will speed up, not slow down or stop, once the ice shelf buttress is damaged and calved.

The two videos below are concerned with the area of W. Antarctica being discussed today.

Anyway, gotta get back to developing the SLC software now.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR? - 8

Fig. 1 How much?

The question, as I will show in this post, is still what the title of this post proclaims (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

The graphic at Fig. 1 is from a Professor Mitrovica presentation on sea level change covered in a post where I pointed out that either sea level rise (SLR) or sea level fall (SLF) are equally catastrophic to the sea ports of current civilization (Peak Sea Level - 2).

Most important though, is that both SLR and SLF, in terms of when they may take place, are dependent on how much acceleration is going to take place in global warming.

Whether SLR or SLF happens to your port of choice is dependent first on when ice sheet meltwater or calving glaciers flow or slide into the sea, and that being the biggie, depends on acceleration of melt or calving caused by global warming (which depends on CO2 levels, which depends on the very dependable use of fossil fuels by Petroleum Civilization).

In other words, you can depend on either SLR or SLF coming to a sea port near you because of global warming induced climate change (brought to you by Oil-Qaeda: Oil-Qaeda: The Indictment).

And, you can bet that either SLR or SLF will be ugly (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Sea Level Change By Way of Gravity?

In a recent post (The Gravity of Sea Level Change) I explained how Professor Mitrovica points out that the gravity of ice sheets becomes an important factor when considering whether your local sea port will be ruined by SLR or by SLF.

Does it really matter which one does a sea port in?

It does in terms of sea ports being the organs of current civilization, but it doesn't matter in terms of some other things (e.g. air travel).

Remember that gravity does not cause the ice sheets to melt, it causes the meltwater to conform akin to how it does tides every day.

Which is Worse SLR or SLF?

For an example situation, remember that SLR will come inland to damage, disrupt, or destroy homes, roads, and other infrastructure (e.g. ports).

But to the contrary, SLF will merely render homes, roads, and other infrastructure to be further away from the coast and ocean (that too may cause some problems).

Also, in the case of SLF, there would be fewer refugees in the sense that homes, cities, and towns along the coast would not become submarine structures, in whole or in part, as they will in the case of SLR.

The point to remember, in all cases, is that without sea ports current global trade based civilization cannot survive as we know it.

Changes are required (leave fossil fuels in the ground or suffer much worse) that are based on savvy as to both SLR and SLF.

"When And How Soon" Is the Cat's Meow!

"How much?" (Fig. 1) and "what kind?" (SLR or SLF) are secondary issues if they seem so far off in the future that everyone says "who cares?"

That is why "how soon?" or "how fast?" are the issues to keep in mind.

President Obama recently said "There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change."

A Sea Level Change Software Model

I mentioned a while back that I am modifying my SLR software so that it will become an SLC software model.
Fig. 2 Ice Sheet mass loss (10 yr doubling)

What that means is that it will calculate both SLR and SLF, along with the notion of when each one, hypothetically, will take place.

And where each one will take place.

The first order of business is to fuse the ice-mass-loss logic with the ice sheet melt logic, because they are intrinsically bound, even though they are not calculated in exactly the same way.

Notice that Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 have a similar look, because they are generated from the same data, but note that they do not have as much of a similar nature.

Fig. 3 SLR (compare with Fig. 2)
I mean that in the sense that one dynamic takes place as a direct result of global warming induced climate change (ice melt = mass loss = gravity loss).

While the other (SLR or SLF) takes place afterwards, when the Earth takes the meltwater or ice bergs to their final destination to then become fluids in either an SLR environment or an SLF environment.

Nevertheless, the core structure of the software program is focused on the central issue, which is "when will the ice sheets melt and how fast will they melt?"


In closing, I will give one more preview or peek into the "remodel" work done so far on the SLC modelling software:
Force of gravity calculations:
G = 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
F = G((m1 * m2) / d2)
For Antarctica:

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 100
F = 5.81906

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 200
F = 1.45476

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 300
F = 0.646562

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 400
F = 0.363691

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 500
F = 0.232762

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 600
F = 0.16164

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 700
F = 0.118756

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 800
F = 0.0909228

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 900
F = 0.0718402

when m1 = 2.95283e+07; m2 = 2.95283e+07; d = 1000
F = 0.0581906

For Greenland:

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 100
F = 0.0458119

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 200
F = 0.011453

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 300
F = 0.00509021

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 400
F = 0.00286324

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 500
F = 0.00183248

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 600
F = 0.00127255

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 700
F = 0.000934937

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 800
F = 0.000715811

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 900
F = 0.000565579

when m1 = 2.62e+06; m2 = 2.62e+06; d = 1000
F = 0.000458119
Notice that as "d" (distance) increases the force of gravity "F" weakens considerably (by a factor of 100: 0.0458119 ÷ 0.000458119 = 100).

Also, notice that Antarctica's "F" is about 127 times more powerful than Greenland's "F" is (Antarctica's "F" @ 100 km = 5.81906; Greenland's "F" @ 100 km = 0.0458119; thus, 5.81906 ÷ 0.0458119 = 127).

That is very important when calculating and contemplating whether or not a sea port will "go down" due to SLR, or instead will "go down" because of SLF (due to Antarctica ice sheet melt, or Greenland ice sheet melt, or both).

Anyway, the SLC modelling software does not have very far to go before it is fully remodelled (a week or less).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

Arctic Ice Extent: 2015 Struggles For First Place - 3

Fig. 1 Arctic Sea Ice Extent (Aug. 10)
As shown in Fig. 1, it looks as though this year will not be the record year.

It started off as the lowest year, but lost momentum in early June, then looked like it would make a comeback in late July and early August.

I have been tracking the 2015 events in this series (Arctic Ice Extent: 2015 Struggles For First Place, 2),

The full information is available at the NSIDC.

The thing to watch is probably whether or not 2016 starts off as the lowest extent early one like this year did.

That could be a trend ... melting from the other side rather than the end of summer side.

We shall see.

I will continue to update the two graphs below each day, until the extent begins to grow again in mid September.

NASA says 2015 is the 4th lowest extent, without extenuating circumstances, like, for instance, year 2012 had, which is currently in first place:
"This year is the fourth lowest, and yet we haven't seen any major weather event or persistent weather pattern in the Arctic this summer that helped push the extent lower, as often happens," Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, said in a statement. "It was a bit warmer in some areas than last year, but it was cooler in other places, too." Since 1996, the sea ice decline has accelerated, and Meier said the ice cover is becoming less and less resilient: "The sea ice cap, which used to be a solid sheet of ice, now is fragmented into smaller floes that are more exposed to warm ocean water. In the past, Arctic sea ice was like a fortress. The ocean could only attack it from the sides. Now it's like the invaders have tunneled in from underneath and the ice pack melts from within."
(The Week). To me that means we should focus closely on 2016 events there next summer.

FINAL UPDATE: (click on a graph to enlarge)

As of (Sep. 13)

As of (Sep. 15)

The previous post in this series is here.

Significance of methane feedback loops in the Arctic:

Monday, August 10, 2015

Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 4

Fig. 1 @16:26 of Mitrovica video
I. Background

The subtitle for today's post could be:  "With friends like Oil-Qaeda, who needs enemies?"

I say that in the context of someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome who might say: "without Oil-Qaeda we would not be using millions of barrels of oil each day, nor would oil be the lifeblood of our civilization, and I could not be proudly driving my Humvee around."

Never do they seem to grasp the fact that Oil-Qaeda is channelling Charles Manson, and being cheered for it even though Manson, like Stalin, has been condemned by freedom loving people.

Or have they?

This is another case that gives credence to the observational ability of the dark hearted one, who said:
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
(Joseph Stalin). That statement is beyond the grasp of many because there is a dearth of understanding about our animal / mammalian subconscious dynamics:
That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:
In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.

When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.
Slovic has also shown that the amount of compassion humans feel can diminish as the number of victims increases: In an experiment in Israel, Slovic asked volunteers whether they would help raise $300,000 to save eight children who were dying of cancer. Those in another group were told only about one child with cancer and asked how much they were willing to donate to save the life of that child. Slovic found that people were willing to give more money to save one life than to save eight.

"When we trust our feelings in these cases, we are led down the path of turning our backs on the suffering of many people," Slovic said. "Even though we don't think of ourselves as uncaring, if we trust our moral intuition, it is not designed by evolution to respond accurately to these types of situations of mass tragedy."
(Reason, emphasis added). Another application of the concept is the reaction to the death of one lion, Cecil, compared with the relative indifference to the extinction of all lions currently being brought on by the use of fossil fuels.

We are currently living and dying within the boundaries of the Sixth Mass Extinction.

A mass extinction event brought on by human activity (Center for Biological Diversity).

An extinction event that is, culturally, a statistical trance seeming unattached to our subconscious emotional circuitry (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3).

Thus, I use the metaphor, epitome, or analogy of a real invasion of the U.S., which after a century of fear inducing propaganda by the powers that be,  should inure to the beneficial side of our ability to focus.

II. What Has Been Missing In This Series

In the first three posts of this series, I covered the notion of sea level rise (SLR), significantly directed toward its impact on the U.S. east coast sea ports (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3).

That presentation is true, as applied to the U.S., yet that presentation is incomplete in a sense, because it is based on too much current "conventional bathtub science" (the establishment-science perspective).

Thus, in those three posts I did not present the full gravity of the situation (it is actually worse than I wrote, because of gravity, of all things).

That lack of completeness has been shored up in some subsequent posts (e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change, Peak Sea Level - 2).

The bottom line is that the situation for the U.S. is worse than I estimated, perhaps by about 15 percent.

The graphic, Fig. 1, depicts what would happen if Greenland lost enough ice sheet mass to cause an imaginary "conventional bathtub science" event of "1m global mean SLR."

The gist of it is that there is no real scenario that matches a global mean SLR of any level, because it is imaginary, unreal, and will never happen.

What is real, what will happen, is that sea level change (SLC) will take place any time the ice sheets of Greenland and/or Antarctica melt and/or calve ice into the sea.

That SLC will not be like what happens in a bathtub ("conventional bathtub science"), but rather will be dependent on the dynamics discussed in the video presented in The Gravity of Sea Level Change and Peak Sea Level - 2 (and the 2nd video below).

III. So What Does That Have To Do With An Invasion?

Basically, the invasion is coming sooner and more intensely to the U.S., because the gravitational factors increase the SLR specifically in the continental U.S. and a few other areas.

Those same gravitational factors will lower sea level in some places, while leaving SLR as it is now in yet other places around the globe (e.g. The Gravity of Sea Level Change, Peak Sea Level - 2).

IV. I Don't Like It - I Have To Change My SLR Model

Regular readers know that I developed an SLR projecting software model (The Evolution of Models, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

It was based on the "conventional bathtub science" method of fantasizing about the physically non-existent "global mean SLR," an imaginary concept.

My SLR model, in its current state, is still useful for some areas, such as the U.S., but it is not useful for areas that will be impacted by sea level fall (SLF), or areas that will have no SLC.

And it has a basic underestimate in it, because gravity will cause more rise than previously contemplated (about 15% more).

V. Conclusion

If you think I have work to do, think about the software models built long ago before the better software languages and compilers came around (see videos @ The Evolution of Models, 10).

And all of those models were developed before the notion of SLC came around a few years ago.

Hi ho hi ho its off to work I go.

BTW, the two videos below contrast the conventional bathtub science with the gravitational inclusion science.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Conventional "global mean SLR" version (for the most part) that we all labored under:

All things considered SLC version: