Friday, June 2, 2017

A Tale of Coup Cities - 14

"I am the Wall R Us"
The overthrow of those in the United States who want "to make the planet great again" (quoting the President of France) has now been substantially completed by the psychopaths (When You Are Governed By Psychopaths, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) and their supporters (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

I commented on the previous post in this series, as follows: "Do not forget the decades-long global warming coup (Smoke & Fumes)." (link to comment)

That post was five days prior to the election that, as it turns out, was the ultimate result of an ongoing coup in the United States, which this series has warned about for years (A Tale of Coup Cities, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13).

In that light, review the previous post for accuracy:

Tales can come true
A "coup" in the context of this series, is an inordinate change that has taken place where it should not have ("coup ... a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move" - Dictionary).

A coup can occur without violence.

It can also take place surreptitiously, as did the coup in the U.S.eh?, which General Wesley Clark spoke of (A Tale of Coup Cities - 2).

A coup can even be noticed intellectually, then spoken of poetically without the use of the word "coup" ("In the home of the brave Jefferson is turning over in his grave" - Bob Dylan, Slow Train).

As is taught in some of the military institutions that "educate" (education is a form of indoctrination - Noam Chomsky) the coup is their traditionally preferred method of defeating an "enemy":
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
(Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?). But, even the policy of one's own nation can become an "enemy" and deserving of a coup, according to some military intellectuals:
The U.S. military keeps searching the horizon for a peer competitor, the challenger that must be taken seriously. Is it China? What about an oil rich and resurgent Russia?

But the threat that is most likely to hobble U.S. military capabilities is not a peer competitor, rather it is health care.
(The Enemy the Pentagon Should Fear Most: Health Care). However, some of the military generals do not like non-violent coups:
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.

And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be
"Jesus is coming with an AR-15" - U.S. General
carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.

Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you're going to have to fight at times. You won't build my kingdom with a sword, but you're going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that's where the whole thing came from. I can't prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that's where it came from.

And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.
(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4). So much for Sun Tzu, so, one must ponder which of these military philosophies will dominate.

Will it remain the surreptitious coup, or will the violent coup take the day (Will The Military Become The Police?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

For the time being, the surreptitious coup is for the most part able to carry the day:
President Barack Obama let Republicans have it Wednesday for their change of tune on how they might deal with Supreme Court vacancies.

Speaking at a rally for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, the president pointed the finger at that battleground state’s Sen. Richard Burr. Obama chided Burr, who is fighting for his own re-election, over his recent vow to leave the high court short-handed for four more years if Clinton wins next week.

“Some are saying they won’t appoint a ninth Supreme Court justice at all,” Obama said. He noted Burr “just said that if Hillary wins, he’ll do everything he can to block all Supreme Court nominations.”

Since mid-October, Republican senators have been rolling out a new pretext for refusing to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now their principles may bar them from voting for anybody nominated by a Democrat, regardless of whether the American people chose that Democrat to be president.
(Coup RE: Supreme Court Nominees, emphasis added). This type of coup may carry the day, but it will not suffice for tomorrow.

This is because of how the people have been educated to think:
In the first post of this series, we pointed out that most Americans polled in an annual Gallup Poll think that the military is the most competent institution in America.

In that post we perused Gallup Poll figures from 2009, as shown on the graphic to the left (red lines added).

Today in 2011, the military is still seen as the most competent American institution, according to this year's Gallup Poll, even though the wars they are prosecuting are not at all popular.

Let's take a look for reasons and realities as to how it is that the military, once considered the lackey for the tyranny of the tyrants, has come full circle to invade and occupy the hearts of a once freedom loving people.
(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2, emphasis added). So, one might ask what will be done when the civil institutions, which are not as competent as the military in the mind of way too many Americans, fail to operate anymore.

What will be done when the Supreme Court becomes extinct by an ongoing coup, when the middle class becomes extinct by an ongoing coup, yes, when the America of old becomes extinct by ongoing coups?

Surely, what will replace them will be empty of public freedom, according to those who conceived embronic America in a way that it could eventually become great:
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 The Author of the Bill of Rights). The unnerving part of this is that we can't vote our way out of it (The Elections of Pontius Pilots, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Perhaps the reason for the coup, as to the U.S. Supreme Court, is not so surreptitious a reason for a coup:
While executive officers can declare the military reasonableness of conduct amounting to torture, it is beyond the power of even the President to declare such conduct lawful. The same is true for any other applicable legal prohibition. The fact that the President -- let alone a significantly inferior executive officer -- opines that certain conduct is lawful does not determine the actual lawfulness of that conduct. The determination of specific violations of law is constitutionally committed to the courts, even if that law touches military affairs.
(U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Oct. 2016). This is the Marbury v Madison (1803) principle (Common Sense and Marbury v Madison).

That makes it clear to me why the coup in the Judicial Branch of government is under way (Here Come De Conservative Judges, Activist Judges Of The Conservative Sort, Coup: The JAG Becomes The Supreme Court).

END OF PREVIOUS POST
(videos in that post were not copied)

In closing today's post, let me urge you to remember the words of Professor Larence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, 31 years in military service, etc.

He contemplates a potential serious increase in the degree of the ongoing coup as revealed in the following video:




The previous post in this series is here.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The World According To Measurements - 5

Fig. 1 SLC is giving new meaning to "high tide"
It seems that the discipline Physics should contain less myth than some of the other disciplines in science.

Perhaps that is because it is based on arithmetic, mathematics, algebra, trigonometry, geometry, quantum mechanics, and related hard sciences.

But, when it comes to the physics of sea level science that is not always the case--if we consider the case of Woodward 1888, a case somewhat similar to Semmelweis 1865 (in the sense or nonsense of ignoring published scientific papers).

Woodward is evidently the first scientist to add robust concepts of physics a la Newton to sea level change science:
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 Warming Science Commentariat). At least Woodward was not committed to an insane asylum like Semmelweis was (for challenging conventional, but erroneous, dogmatic "science").

But, Woodward was ignored, at least until Mitrovica et al. (see video below) closely studied his work.

Not only did Mitrovica not ignore Woodward, he improved immensely upon Woodward's work, while at the same time giving Woodward credit for his work.

These three recent papers  (Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008, Church, et al., 2011; Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century, Church; and Understanding sea-level rise and variability, Church JA, Woodworth PL, Aarup T, Wilson SW (eds), 2010) ignored Woodward.

In those papers the word "gravity" is not mentioned as an agent of sea level change, which was a central issue in Woodward 1888.

Gravity is mentioned, if at all, only as it has an impact on GRACE satellite sensing of gravity changes over Greenland and/or Antarctica, in terms of that being an indication of an ice sheet melting.

Thus, they are left to thrash around trying to fill the missing Woodward Mitrovica gap with hot air hypotheses about thermal expansion on steroids.

Meanwhile, the ghost of physics haunts them (The Ghost-Water Constant - 4) and the thermal expansion rabbit hole fools them (Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 13), even though the case is clear (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).

One paper did consider "gravitational changes resulting from dam storage," but the sea level change ghost in plain sight was not observed or considered (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Things may be changing.

Regular reader Mark posted a link recently that is another indicator that research may be breaking loose from the myth (NASA discovers a new mode of ice loss in Greenland – “Intense melting such as we saw in 2010 and 2012 is without precedent”,  "Our mass transport wave measurement is the first of its kind, on any of the major outlet glaciers of either Greenland or Antarctica"; AGU, same paper).

Less intense, but more "Earth shaking" was a study that simply looked at old WWII photos and more recent satellite photos to discover that the dogma "East Antarctica is stable and won't melt" is falsified (Antarctica 2.0, 2).

Enjoy the video below if you want to not only see the ghost, but also learn of the fingerprints it leaves.

The previous post in this series is here.

Dr. Mitrovica I presume:

08:00 The use of global mean average has led us astray for 100 years.
15:20 Taking the average assumes the imaginary bathtub model.
16:30 It is completely wrong.
21:00 100m of SLF @ Greenland's coast when all ice sheet is gone.
26:40 The Dutch government did not understand the scenario.
28:40 When the ice sheet melts, all the water is distributed in 2 weeks.
29:30 It is error to say that SLF is due only to the land rising.



Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 13

Fig. 1 Temperatures above sea level
Try as I might, I cannot fathom why managers of scientists perpetuated the thermal expansion myth ("thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" or "thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution" ... see UCS, NOAA).

According to the myth, only a 0.1 deg C temperature change  in ocean water caused all that sea level rise:
Fig. 2 Temperatures below sea level
"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives."
(National Geo, emphasis added). Now that the decision has been made as to 'Who Dunnit,' it is time to measure stuff:
Fig. 3 Sea level change
"Given the importance of the ocean warming signal for understanding our changing climate, it is high time to measure the global ocean systematically from the surface to the ocean floor," said NOAA oceanographer Gregory Johnson.
(L. Livermore Nat'l Lab, emphasis added). What a concept ... measurements ... all the way down to the bottom ... no skimming the surface any more !

Fig. 4 Thermal components
The graph at Fig. 4 shows the main components of thermal expansion: salinity and water temperature.

The graph at Fig. 5 shows the extended and improved version of calculating thermal expansion and contraction.

I made the steric graphs from WOD measurements taken from 1966-2016 and placed into the CTD and PFL datasets (the better part of a billion measurements).

The difference in the process now, compared to the last ones I blogged about (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 19) is that I load data from the SQL server, and then apply TEOS-10 calculations, one zone measurement at a time, rather than one layer at a time.

Fig. 5  Is this all you've got?
This finer granularity should be more precise, in that the TEOS-10 formulas are applied in finer detail prior to averaging the zones per layer as I was doing before.

The process goes like this: 1) load all measurements taken at all depths, arranged according to the year they were taken; 2) store them according to their GISS, PSMSL, and WOD source; 3) do the initial process appling TEOS-10 formulas to the WOD values (some source code samples):
double p = gsw_p_from_z(heights[zData.depthLayer], zData.lat);
double t = zData.value; /** water temperature measurement */
double SP = zData.value; /** salinity measurement */
double SA = gsw_sa_from_sp(SP, p, zData.lon, zData.lat);
double CT = gsw_ct_from_t(SA,t,p);
(TEOS-10 Toolbox). The basic measurements loaded from the SQL server are year, varcode (1 = temperature, 2 = salinity) depth level (seven levels, from surface to bottom), zone (a latitude, longitude 'square'), and layer (0-17 ten-degree-high latitude bands, from pole to pole).

After all of the data is loaded into an array, they are combined/averaged, etc. by year (1880-2016 in this case), zone (up to 36 zones per layer), and layer (up to 18 layers).

First the zones, then the layers are averaged by year.

Finally the formula V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT) is applied to each year's values to derive thermal expansion and contraction (steric volume change) for that year (Fig. 5, and see here).

The graph at Fig. 5 shows that the volume-change value and actual volume value patterns match (same graph-type as in Fig. 3 for RLR sea level and sea level change values).

As you can see, the papers on thermal expansion in the scientific literature are questionable (peer reviewers, who question every paper before it is published, take note).

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