Friday, October 7, 2016

The Path of Matthew - 2

Fig. 1 Did you say u-turn?

As it turns out and as we all know now, this storm had more surprises, and did not make the u-turn that had been forecast.

Sections I thru IV were the original post sections.

The new Section V below discusses the changes and adds two graphics to portray the current expectations.

Original post:

I. The U-Turn Surprise

The robust weather software models running on the supercomputers plotted a course for Hurricane Matthew that has been reasonably correct so far (The Path of Matthew).

The diversion from earlier projections and expectations now manifesting is that Hurricane Matthew will make a "U-turn."

That is expected to begin to take place some where off the coast of Georgia, or S. Carolina, or N. Carolina, where it will head east then curve southward and head back down as far south as it was when it was a category 4.

While we are hoping that people have evacuated to inland areas away from the expected storm surges, there is also some interesting thought experiments we can do that may help our future understanding.

II. About The Graphics

To set the stage for that, let me point out some of the characteristics of the graphic detail ("not to scale") related to these phenomena.
Fig. 2 NOAA

The graphic at Fig. 1 is a rough depiction of the u-turn that is projected by meteorologists.

I enhanced it a bit to show the expected loop back which they are now forecasting.

The graphic at Fig. 2 is a NOAA depiction of sea surface temperatures along Hurricane Matthew's recent track area, on up to the coordinates where the hurricane is expected to begin to make the u-turn.

The graphic at Fig. 3 is the same as Fig. 2, except that I drew some "Cat ..." (category) squares on it to show what the hurricane category was, is, and what it is expected to become.

It is expected to drop down to a tropical depression ("TD" ), well below hurricane strength, as it makes that turn toward the south and eventually moves on in a slight southwesterly track.

III. Put Your Thinking Caps On

Some in the warming science commentariat tend to gloss over component parts of the damaged global climate system reality.

Fig. 3 Modified NOAA
As a result, they may oversimplify some aspects of hurricane dynamics (e.g. the implication that warm "hot" ocean surface water will always increase hurricane strength has been advanced to those who read their blog).

These graphics show that the hurricane became a category 4 strength storm (again) while in the yellow/green area off Miami, Florida, shortly after leaving the Bahamas as a category 3.

As the eye skimmed along the coast some miles offshore, it dropped from the category 4 rating into a category 3, and is projected to drop to a category 2, then less.

It is projected to drop to a category 1 while tracking along the top arc ("12 o'clock position" - purple color), which is the projected beginning of its loop back to the south.

Note that during that right turn it reenters the warmer green/yellow water in the area shown on Fig. 2 & Fig. 3, and stays in the warmer waters while heading south once again (note: it stayed a category 3 while in that temperature-color through the Bahamas).

But it is not projected to increase in intensity back to a category 2, 3, or 4 while in that warmer water zone during the "loop-back" or "u-turn."

No, to the contrary while in these warmest water temperatures once again it is projected to weaken into a mere tropical depression, well below the category 4 hurricane strength it had attained when it entered that yellow/green zone a few days earlier.

Chuck Todd yesterday asked one of the warming science commentariat folks why it was losing strength as it moved south over those warm waters.

She responded "because upwelling (cooler water forced toward the surface) was caused when it went over the ocean earlier."

The problem with that misinformation is that it did not pass over any of that area before.

The loop back track is over waters way offshore that it did not go over as it skimmed the coast, hundreds of miles to the west of the upcoming southerly u-turn track.

Additionally, that "upwelling" assertion presumes that the water underneath is cold enough to do that, but "that allegation is not supported by data now in evidence" a debater might say (see Fig. 2 here).

Dry air is the more likely cause of demise.

IV. Keep An Eye On It

Some of this hypothesizing, in some degree, is speculation because it depends on a hurricane that has made some surprising turns, zigs, and zags that were not expected.

Likewise, for the most part the path it has taken was reasonably well expected and projected ahead of time.

Just sayin' that this is a opportunity to learn that the damaged climate system will behave in unexpected ways, and over the coming years it will increase its number of surprises we will observe.


Fig. 4 The New Path
Keep an eye on it indeed.

The intent of the original post was to discuss the question:
"Why would Hurricane Matthew not regain strength as it changed course and traveled over warm waters again?"
That question remains.

Fig. 5 Warm waters in the new path (NOAA)
The graphs at Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show that the new path goes over warm water.

That warm water has the same surface temperature color scheme as that water when the hurricane increased in strength.

But the hurricane is not projected to increase in strength.

The point is that there are factors involved which dispel a myth.

The myth is: "a warm ocean surface is all that is needed" to increase the strength of a hurricane, tropical storm, or tropical depression.

That debunking is worth remembering.
Fig. 6 Split personality (10/9/16 ~7 AM)

No matter what the surface temperature, dry winds, atmospheric pressures, jet streams, fronts, and the like, also play into the development and persistence of hurricane strength (The Path of Matthew).

Note that Fig. 6 shows the clouds moving along the original path, north along the coast.

But, it also shows the low pressure tropical storm moving east into the warmer waters of the Atlantic (accord Fig. 4).

Keep your thinking cap on.

Some Matthew video ...

Thursday, October 6, 2016

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 8

It is up to Peanuts now
I. Just For Yawns

Today let's look at two reasons that the scientific community, and the warming science commentariat, are clueless on some basic science.

I will exclude all absurd wastes of money and knowledge done while studying yawning - Will Your Brain Get Larger If You Yawn More?.

There is nothing to yawn about, so, more likely than not the perpetuation of ignorance is more likely a function of trance dynamics than it is of boredom (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

II. Just For Starters

So, let's begin with a quote from a spot on scientific paper, which I will quote from again, later during this post:
A common misconception among both the wider scientific community and the general public is that sea-level rise associated with a warming climate would be the same everywhere.
(How The Climate Drives Sea-level Changes, Oxford Journal, 2008). In other words, the greater number of scientists in the scientific community believe (a term of faith) in the bathtub model myth (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water, 2).

For some "reason" the twin myth of that myth is "thermal expansion is the MAJOR cause of sea level rise," a myth which this series documents and debunks (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

III. Just For The Record

I decided to write today's post and add it to this series when I read another scientific paper which contained this statement:
The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy.
(Nature). In other words, varying degrees of cluelessness are in conflict with varying degrees of awareness.

And that even when it comes to the cause of the, or one of the, greatest threats to civilization (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

IV. Scientific Cluelessness Within Scientific Paperdom

Here are some clueless quotes from the realm of Paperdom as it were:
"Sea level rise is strongest in the Arctic Ocean" - Fall Equals Rise

"The thermal expansion of the oceans, compounded by melting glaciers, resulted in the highest global sea level on record in 2015." - Who's On First

"there are several instances where global sea level is rising but steric sea level is falling" - The Measuring Equipment Did It

V. Episcience

What is above science?

Episcience ("epi" means above: Epigovernment: The New Model, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

That is, those who manage scientists through those who manage science projects:
Natural sciences managers supervise the work of scientists, including chemists, physicists, and biologists. They direct activities related to research and development, and coordinate activities such as testing, quality control, and production.
(Natural Sciences Managers, cf. Project Management Institute, How to Manage a Lab and Staff, U.S. Congress Aims to Cut Climate Science).

One scientist who was recently arrested at the White House, and who had to retire from NASA, put some scientific observations to work on this scientific reality:
"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.

It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).

I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."
(Scientific Reticence and Sea Level Rise, James Hansen). BTW, that episcience madness is a very old memetic trance (What Is Pseudo Science?).

VI. Will The Non-yawning Scientists Please Stand Up

The ones who are clued in are still with us:
Sea-level change associated with climate change involves various interactions between different components of the Earth system — primarily oceans, ice sheets and the solid Earth. As a consequence, sea-level science is highly multi- and interdisciplinary, requiring collaboration between scientists who measure and model properties of and processes within these various subsystems.
A key message of this paper is that, contrary to popular belief, climate-driven sea-level change is not spatially uniform.
A common misconception among both the wider scientific community and the general public is that sea-level rise associated with a warming climate would be the same everywhere. For example, concern about the future response of the large ice sheets to projected warming often leads to statements regarding the potential sea-level rise associated with the demise of the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets — approximately 7 m and 5 m, respectively. However, if either of these ice sheets were to lose even a fraction of their mass, the resulting sea-level change would not be spatially uniform. Current models of sea-level change associated with changes in continental ice volume demonstrate that there is, in fact, a sea-level fall in the vicinity of a melting ice sheet or glacier.
This spatial non-uniformity in the sea-level response to climate change is, of course, a serious issue when considering the sea-level hazard from future global warming. In the coming century, some areas will experience a considerable sea-level rise, whereas others will experience little change or even a considerable fall. It is important for governments and policy makers to be aware of this variability so that appropriate action can be made to plan and implement appropriate mitigatory procedures.
Sea-level fingerprinting

Because sea-level change associated with climate variation is not spatially uniform, it is possible to look for patterns in observations of past changes to infer dominant melt sources or constrain the relative importance of steric changes (sea-level changes arising from expansion and contraction of the water as temperature or salinity changes; see box on p2.26) compared to ice melt/growth. A recent application of this type considered a carefully selected subset of tide gauge records to look for a signal related to melting of land ice during the 20th century (Mitrovica 2001). The basis of this study is the pattern of global sea-level change when assuming melt from three distinct sources: Greenland, Antarctica and smaller ice masses such as mountain glaciers and ice caps.
(How The Climate Drives Sea-level Changes, Oxford Journal, 2008, emphasis added). It is a good sign when scientists quote relevant material and work done by their peers (notice the Mitrovica 2001 reference).

There are scientists within NASA who are in accord with the knowledge of Newton concerning gravity:
As any ice sheet melts, sea levels along coastlines as much as 1,500 miles
Fig. 2 The Battle of the Bulge
(2,000 kilometers) away will fall as seawater escapes from the reduced gravitational pull and the crust lifts. The escaping seawater flows clear across the equator: the melting of Antarctica affects the U.S. East and West coasts, and Greenland's disappearance impacts the coastline of Brazil. These regional differences are significant -- such as in the case of the East Coast of the United States.
(The Warming Science Commentariat - 3). For those interested in the full blown discussion of the issue, check out this series (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

VII. The Warming Science Commentariat Conclusion

After the managers are finished with the work of the scientists they control, making sure that their work complies with the wishes of their bosses (e.g. Robert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and of course the sheiks of Oil-Qaeda), the results are communicated to the warming science commentariat for injection of hopium, "we can handle it", and "nothing to see here folks, move along now" types of pabulum.

By the warming science commentariat, I mean those who are misled, as well as those who deliberately deceive (In the Fog of The Presstitutes, 2, 3; Blind Willie McTell News, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Mocking America, 2, 3, 4).

You know, yawndom (How the IPCC Underestimated Climate Change, Scientific American, 2012).

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

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Trancing With The Stars

Fig. 1 WOW. original data
Regular commenters Mark and randy wanted to know about the West Coast of South America, in terms of what the WOD data show is going on there.

Yesterday's post had some ocean temperature cooling which induced Mark to look closer at the cooling ocean in the Caribbean, which is generally a warm water locale.

He discovered that glacial waters are flowing from the Columbian Andes into that ocean area to cause cooling of the ocean in that WOD zone (7107).

Fig. 2 One line deleted
I thought to myself, since that is a good example (readers who question and are cautious) I would go ahead and do the west coast for them.

Well, I ran into a mystery myself while preparing the graphs.

In the year 1980, in WOD zones 5407 and 5507, there was an odd and seemingly anomalous temperature recorded for those zones.

After I did a graph, I removed the questionable year-1980 line from the CSV file and then generated another graph with the year-1980 data in it.

The graph at Fig. 1 is the graph with the year-1980 line of data in it, and Fig. 2 is the exact same CSV file with that one (year-1980) line removed.

Fig. 3 WOD Zones W. Coast S. America
What a difference one line can make eh?

The one line had all seven depths, and when removed it impacted all levels for the year involved.

Now, let me tell you what I went through so I would not become infected with the "Dunning-Krueger effect".

I did queries on millions of lines of data in the SQL "rawwod" database, then noticed where those two WOD zones are (the ones that had the surprising year-1980 data in them).

It so happens that those two zones are located in the area of Patagonia, where the Southern Patagonian Ice Field is (southern tip of S. America).

Interestingly, Lautaro (a volcano in that ice field) erupted near the time frame of that cold water temperature surge (Lautaro Volcano):
Lautaro Glacier (Glaciar Lautaro), also called HPS9 glacier (Aniya et al., 2000; Cassasa et al., 2000), has 17 km long and 600 m wide in average, and flows along the western flank of the Lautaro volcano edifice (maximum altitude of 3,607 m a.s.l.), with its terminus at a marine fjord (Fig. 2).
(Geologic reconnaissance of Lautaro Volcano, Chilean Patagonia). "It could happen."

I then remembered that the Greenland Ice Sheet is causing a cold blob of ocean water south of it, by releasing rivers of cold melt water (which shows up in surface temperature maps).
Fig. 4 Patagonia

Assuming that the WOD data are correct, what we have here is an indication of a massive release of melt water into WOD zones 5407 and 5507 circa 1980.

The data also show ocean temperatures recovering and moderating after that (as the sea level graph lines show @ Fig. 1).

Anyway, Fig. 3 shows the WOD zones involved in this exercise along the west coast of S. America.

But also check out Fig. 4 which is a graphic depicting events that include Patagonia.

The "odd graph line" happened in an area where non-intuitive sea level events take place often (like what happens in South Eastern Alaska and elsewhere: Proof of Concept , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

Monday, October 3, 2016

The Path of Matthew

Fig. 1 Path of Matthew (red lines)
The graphic at Fig. 1 shows the past and the projected path of what is now Hurricane Matthew.

It was an embryo in its mother's womb in Africa near the southern edge of the Sahara Desert.

Warm winds blowing from east to west over the dry land mass eventually intersected with winds blowing over the Atlantic Ocean in a direction of about a 90 degree variance with the desert winds coming off Africa.

This created some spinning vortexes which were the birth of "a thing of interest" which would be watched as it was nourished by warm waters of the Atlantic.

Fig. 2 Water temperatures @ path of Matthew
Eventually the Atlantic Nanny as a surrogate mother raised up the infant vortex into a tropical depression, then a tropical storm, and eventually an adult vortex we call a tropical hurricane.

Matthew grew quickly into a category 1,2,3,4 and ultimately a category 5 monster hurricane.

The young monster withered back and forth some, from a 5 down to a 4, back to a 5, and so forth.

Matthew's path also oscillated as its guidance counselors and mentors, which set the directions of this type of entity (jet stream winds, atmospheric highs, land masses, etc.) struggled to be the boss, competing to guide Matthew's every movement.

The graph at Fig. 2 is constructed from data that scientists have recorded over the years in the 11 WOD zones (7101, 7102, 7103, 7104, 7105, 7106, 7107, 7207, 7307, 7406, and 7407) of Matthew's path.

It is that data, which they graciously placed into the WOD database, that now allows us to view ocean characteristics if we want to, and know how to.

That Fig. 2 graph depicts the ocean water temperatures from the surface down to the deepest depths, categorized into seven different layers (see the "Legend" on Fig. 2).

The 11 WOD zones, along the past and projected path of Hurricane Matthew, were analyzed by Dredd Blog software as follows:
WOD Zone: 7101 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 101 upward & 110 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.5144
  • 200-400m = 0.6312
  • 400-600m = 1.70517
  • 600-800m = 2.22574
  • 800-1000m = 1.87079
  • 1000-3000m = 0.48546
  • >3000m = 0.0408
Net change for 7 levels: 7.47356

Years involved: 1968 -> 2016 (48 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (7.47356 ÷ 48): 0.155699

WOD Zone: 7102 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 158 upward & 148 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 4.2345
  • 200-400m = 2.409
  • 400-600m = 1.9277
  • 600-800m = 0.47443
  • 800-1000m = 1.28984
  • 1000-3000m = -1.09143
  • >3000m = -1.07794
Net change for 7 levels: 8.1661

Years involved: 1968 -> 2016 (48 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (8.1661 ÷ 48): 0.170127

WOD Zone: 7103 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 98 upward & 102 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 3.257
  • 200-400m = 4.9948
  • 400-600m = 3.2359
  • 600-800m = 2.2555
  • 800-1000m = 1.47301
  • 1000-3000m = 0.36366
  • >3000m = 0.22791
Net change for 7 levels: 15.8078

Years involved: 1983 -> 2016 (33 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (15.8078 ÷ 33): 0.479024

WOD Zone: 7104 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 113 upward & 117 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 2.3408
  • 200-400m = 3.05938
  • 400-600m = 1.70783
  • 600-800m = 1.20536
  • 800-1000m = 0.91056
  • 1000-3000m = 0.51696
  • >3000m = 0.41707
Net change for 7 levels: 10.158

Years involved: 1977 -> 2016 (39 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (10.158 ÷ 39): 0.260461

WOD Zone: 7105 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 150 upward & 130 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 2.4952
  • 200-400m = 4.4957
  • 400-600m = 1.11651
  • 600-800m = 0.84599
  • 800-1000m = -0.53569
  • 1000-3000m = -1.94983
  • >3000m = 0.07754
Net change for 7 levels: 6.54542

Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (6.54542 ÷ 47): 0.139264

WOD Zone: 7106 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 104 upward & 109 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.9352
  • 200-400m = -0.6761
  • 400-600m = -4.91038
  • 600-800m = -1.55536
  • 800-1000m = -1.32678
  • 1000-3000m = -2.76879
  • >3000m = 2.7674
Net change for 7 levels: -7.53481

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-7.53481 ÷ 55): -0.136997

WOD Zone: 7107 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 77 upward & 91 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.0508
  • 200-400m = -1.2387
  • 400-600m = -2.71103
  • 600-800m = -6.6913
  • 800-1000m = -1.22707
  • 1000-3000m = -1.87974
Net change for 6 levels: -13.7986

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-13.7986 ÷ 55): -0.250884

WOD Zone: 7207 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 170 upward & 161 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.4178
  • 200-400m = 3.9188
  • 400-600m = 10.3917
  • 600-800m = 8.17194
  • 800-1000m = 2.13895
  • 1000-3000m = -1.26957
  • >3000m = 1.02216
Net change for 7 levels: 24.7918

Years involved: 1968 -> 2016 (48 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (24.7918 ÷ 48): 0.516495

WOD Zone: 7307 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 137 upward & 142 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -2.4451
  • 200-400m = 0.6355
  • 400-600m = -3.54615
  • 600-800m = -2.60135
  • 800-1000m = -11.5359
  • 1000-3000m = -14.4362
  • >3000m = -12.8214
Net change for 7 levels: -46.7506

Years involved: 1968 -> 2016 (48 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-46.7506 ÷ 48): -0.973972

WOD Zone: 7406 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 173 upward & 162 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = -12.7341
  • 200-400m = -1.25229
  • 400-600m = 5.83383
  • 600-800m = -6.75807
  • 800-1000m = 3.23549
  • 1000-3000m = 1.28294
  • >3000m = 0.31622
Net change for 7 levels: -10.076

Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (-10.076 ÷ 47): -0.214383

WOD Zone: 7407 (all figures in deg. C)

Concerning temperature trends, there
were 37 upward & 32 downward trends.

Net changes per level were:
  • 0-200m = 4.07653
  • 200-400m = 4.93084
  • 400-600m = 6.6664
Net change for 3 levels: 15.6738

Years involved: 1961 -> 2015 (54 yrs)

Average change per year:
  • (15.6738 ÷ 54): 0.290255

Combined averages for 11 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)

Concerning change trends, the mean average
was 119 upward & 118 downward trends.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.276493
  • 200-400m = 1.99165
  • 400-600m = 1.94704
  • 600-800m = -0.220647
  • 800-1000m = -0.336986
  • 1000-3000m = -1.88605
  • >3000m = -0.820929
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.95057

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.95057 ÷ 55): 0.0172831 C per year

Fig. 3 Sea level in the 11 WOD Zones
The graph at Fig. 3 shows the historical sea level rise in the 11 WOD Zones along the path of hurricane Matthew (PSMSL tide gauge records).

It is not exactly clear how Matthew will behave once it throws fits and impacts Cuba, Haiti, Jamaica, and islands north of there (or the U.S. mainland for that matter).

We watch and hope it will move east, and not become another Hurricane Sandy!

The next post in this series is here.