Saturday, June 17, 2017

Don't Worry, Be Happy

Fig. 1 WOD Zone 7307
The East Coast of the U.S. is a place where sea level rise is noticeable (The Extinction of Chesapeake Bay Islands).

But the inhabitants of one island that has not yet been "deep-sixed" in that area, in the Chesapeake Bay area, have been told that The Donald doesn't believe it.

To the islanders it is also not believable (even though "since 1850, over 66% of Tangier's landmass has disappeared underwater"), at least to the majority there who voted for the current U.S. administration of denial (Trump told the mayor of a disappearing island not to worry about sea-level rise).

Fig. 2 SLR Disected
Even though at least thirteen islands in that area have already been deep-sixed, they still seem to buy into exceptionalism of the mythical kind.

The graph at Fig. 1 shows (outlined in red) the WOD zone where Tangier Island is located.

The graph at Fig. 2 shows the sea level rise that has taken place in that area according to 35 tide gauge stations (including the traditional Dredd Blog 5.1% estimate for steric,thermal expansion).

Instruments have been, in some cases, recording and reporting sea level there for over a hundred years:

Layer 5: latitude 40 -> 30
...
Zone 7307: longitude -70 -> -80

Station #: 234; active: 1922 - 2016 [94 yrs.] Status: SLR (360 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6882.17) end (7242.17) high (7242.17) low (6832.33)
SLC span/range (409.84 mm, 0.40984 m, 1.34462 ft)

Station #: 1721; active: 1988 - 1990 [2 yrs.] Status: SLR (14.58 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7004.17) end (7018.75) high (7018.75) low (7004.17)
SLC span/range (14.58 mm, 0.01458 m, 0.0478346 ft)

Station #: 1651; active: 1986 - 1995 [9 yrs.] Status: SLR (24.66 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7044.04) end (7068.7) high (7068.7) low (6968.04)
SLC span/range (100.66 mm, 0.10066 m, 0.330249 ft)

Station #: 1720; active: 1988 - 1990 [2 yrs.] Status: SLR (120.62 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6998.38) end (7119) high (7171) low (6998.38)
SLC span/range (172.62 mm, 0.17262 m, 0.566339 ft)

Station #: 1444; active: 1978 - 2016 [38 yrs.] Status: SLR (176.16 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6934.17) end (7110.33) high (7145.25) low (6899.88)
SLC span/range (245.37 mm, 0.24537 m, 0.80502 ft)

Station #: 862; active: 1958 - 1977 [19 yrs.] Status: SLR (10.21 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6863.54) end (6873.75) high (6972.83) low (6662)
SLC span/range (310.83 mm, 0.31083 m, 1.01978 ft)

Station #: 1431; active: 1977 - 1988 [11 yrs.] Status: SLF (145.75 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7053.25) end (6907.5) high (7053.25) low (6907.5)
SLC span/range (145.75 mm, 0.14575 m, 0.478182 ft)

Station #: 2294; active: 1979 - 2003 [24 yrs.] Status: SLR (60.45 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6966.17) end (7026.62) high (7095.46) low (6962.71)
SLC span/range (132.75 mm, 0.13275 m, 0.435531 ft)

Station #: 396; active: 1936 - 2016 [80 yrs.] Status: SLR (254.71 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7038.33) end (7293.04) high (7293.04) low (6931.96)
SLC span/range (361.08 mm, 0.36108 m, 1.18465 ft)

Station #: 2295; active: 1974 - 2016 [42 yrs.] Status: SLR (179.88 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7049) end (7228.88) high (7228.88) low (6980.96)
SLC span/range (247.92 mm, 0.24792 m, 0.813386 ft)

Station #: 719; active: 1954 - 1962 [8 yrs.] Status: SLF (75.25 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7008.25) end (6933) high (7056.46) low (6933)
SLC span/range (123.46 mm, 0.12346 m, 0.405052 ft)

Station #: 1636; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (131.3 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7026.7) end (7158) high (7165.92) low (6960.27)
SLC span/range (205.65 mm, 0.20565 m, 0.674705 ft)

Station #: 945; active: 1960 - 1970 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (27.2 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6947.38) end (6974.58) high (6989.25) low (6849.5)
SLC span/range (139.75 mm, 0.13975 m, 0.458497 ft)

Station #: 399; active: 1936 - 1987 [51 yrs.] Status: SLR (240.83 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6778.17) end (7019) high (7044.5) low (6778.17)
SLC span/range (266.33 mm, 0.26633 m, 0.873786 ft)

Station #: 462; active: 1942 - 1967 [25 yrs.] Status: SLR (51.5 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7070.5) end (7122) high (7286.54) low (6995.79)
SLC span/range (290.75 mm, 0.29075 m, 0.953904 ft)

Station #: 1635; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (186.29 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6977.46) end (7163.75) high (7163.75) low (6940.17)
SLC span/range (223.58 mm, 0.22358 m, 0.73353 ft)

Station #: 299; active: 1928 - 2016 [88 yrs.] Status: SLR (475.38 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6819.79) end (7295.17) high (7295.17) low (6819.79)
SLC span/range (475.38 mm, 0.47538 m, 1.55965 ft)

Station #: 597; active: 1951 - 2003 [52 yrs.] Status: SLR (178.91 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6918.71) end (7097.62) high (7155.25) low (6887)
SLC span/range (268.25 mm, 0.26825 m, 0.880085 ft)

Station #: 1295; active: 1972 - 2016 [44 yrs.] Status: SLR (109.04 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7040.75) end (7149.79) high (7172.83) low (6949.08)
SLC span/range (223.75 mm, 0.22375 m, 0.734088 ft)

Station #: 481; active: 1943 - 1951 [8 yrs.] Status: SLR (78.96 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6939.79) end (7018.75) high (7018.75) low (6939.79)
SLC span/range (78.96 mm, 0.07896 m, 0.259055 ft)

Station #: 360; active: 1932 - 2016 [84 yrs.] Status: SLR (287.33 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6786.12) end (7073.45) high (7120.83) low (6757.5)
SLC span/range (363.33 mm, 0.36333 m, 1.19203 ft)

Station #: 971; active: 1961 - 1973 [12 yrs.] Status: SLR (95.38 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6993.29) end (7088.67) high (7198) low (6909.83)
SLC span/range (288.17 mm, 0.28817 m, 0.94544 ft)

Station #: 412; active: 1938 - 2016 [78 yrs.] Status: SLR (298.3 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6954.62) end (7252.92) high (7308) low (6930.42)
SLC span/range (377.58 mm, 0.37758 m, 1.23878 ft)

Station #: 1203; active: 1968 - 1973 [5 yrs.] Status: SLR (89.66 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6905.17) end (6994.83) high (6996.79) low (6905.17)
SLC span/range (91.62 mm, 0.09162 m, 0.300591 ft)

Station #: 311; active: 1929 - 2016 [87 yrs.] Status: SLR (366.04 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6782.88) end (7148.92) high (7174.46) low (6774.92)
SLC span/range (399.54 mm, 0.39954 m, 1.31083 ft)

Station #: 148; active: 1903 - 2016 [113 yrs.] Status: SLR (315.17 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6867.58) end (7182.75) high (7222.75) low (6807.67)
SLC span/range (415.08 mm, 0.41508 m, 1.36181 ft)

Station #: 1338; active: 1973 - 1983 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (46.37 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7018.71) end (7065.08) high (7065.08) low (6935.96)
SLC span/range (129.12 mm, 0.12912 m, 0.423622 ft)

Station #: 636; active: 1952 - 2016 [64 yrs.] Status: SLR (237.91 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6880.17) end (7118.08) high (7118.08) low (6852)
SLC span/range (266.08 mm, 0.26608 m, 0.872966 ft)

Station #: 1337; active: 1973 - 1983 [10 yrs.] Status: SLR (59.17 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6963.08) end (7022.25) high (7022.25) low (6860.6)
SLC span/range (161.65 mm, 0.16165 m, 0.530348 ft)

Station #: 224; active: 1920 - 2016 [96 yrs.] Status: SLR (312.93 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6875.86) end (7188.79) high (7200.88) low (6775.75)
SLC span/range (425.13 mm, 0.42513 m, 1.39478 ft)

Station #: 2292; active: 1998 - 2016 [18 yrs.] Status: SLR (50.46 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7031.62) end (7082.08) high (7093.12) low (6870)
SLC span/range (223.12 mm, 0.22312 m, 0.732021 ft)

Station #: 135; active: 1901 - 2016 [115 yrs.] Status: SLR (314.34 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6742.54) end (7056.88) high (7157.46) low (6691)
SLC span/range (466.46 mm, 0.46646 m, 1.53038 ft)

Station #: 786; active: 1986 - 2016 [30 yrs.] Status: SLR (87.9 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7051.18) end (7139.08) high (7177.38) low (6996.17)
SLC span/range (181.21 mm, 0.18121 m, 0.594521 ft)

Station #: 1153; active: 1967 - 2016 [49 yrs.] Status: SLR (180.34 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (7068.58) end (7248.92) high (7276.04) low (6994.79)
SLC span/range (281.25 mm, 0.28125 m, 0.922736 ft)

Station #: 180; active: 1912 - 2016 [104 yrs.] Status: SLR (458.16 mm)
SLC info (RLR mm): begin (6749.88) end (7208.04) high (7245.4) low (6749.88)
SLC span/range (495.52 mm, 0.49552 m, 1.62572 ft)

(Databases Galore - 19) [go to this link if you are not aware of PSMSL].

Let this grandiose denial be a lesson for you, as it has been for me.

I am talking about the psychology of folks who are endangered by sea level changes but who cannot or will not believe it:
"A recent paper by the biologist Janis L Dickinson, published in the journal Ecology and Society, proposes that constant news and discussion about global warming makes it difficult for people to repress thoughts of death, and that they might respond to the terrifying prospect of climate breakdown in ways that strengthen their character armour but diminish our chances of survival. There is already experimental evidence suggesting that some people respond to reminders of death by increasing consumption. Dickinson proposes that growing evidence of climate change might boost this tendency, as well as raising antagonism towards scientists and environmentalists. Our message, after all, presents a lethal threat to the central immortality project of Western society: perpetual economic growth, supported by an ideology of entitlement and exceptionalism."
(Convergence - Fear of Death Syndrome). It is a phenomenon that spreads through culture like a disease (Comparing a Group-Mind Trance to a Cultural Amygdala, MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact - 3).

Don't worry be happy?



Friday, June 16, 2017

Peering Into The World of Science

Fig. 1 Only a hypothetical pattern?
I. Peering Into The Depths

The notion of a "peer" has many applications, depending on the discipline of the peer (e.g. What Is a Jury of Peers?).

I once told a friend not to worry because he could never be tried by a jury of his peers, because he didn't have any peers; but seriously, do you ever wonder about the ways of scientific peer review?

The peers of scientists question other scientists (imagine those who peer reviewed some of Einstein's revolutionary papers) !

So, it can't be that bad when Dredd Blog does the same thing, eh?

It is good to sharpen each other's wits, because eventually it improves the science and the scientist.
Fig. 2 Temperature Anomalies

II. Today

Today's graphs are from a module I am working on (I mentioned it in a recent post here).

It follows the GISTEMP record of above-sea-level atmosphere and land temperatures, a record going back to 1880.

The exercise is to try to estimate what percentage of heat has entered the ocean during the recorded period from 1880 to 2016.

By estimate, I mean determining the decreasing amount (proceeding back in time 2016->1880) as well as determining the increasing amount (proceeding forward in time 1880->2016) that has taken place (e.g. Fig. 1).

Fig. 3 Nothin' from somethin' leaves somethin'
III. First Things First

But before I get heavily into that, let's look at some peer reviewed papers.

They show how far and wide apart the concepts passing through peer review have been.

In general terms, those concerned with these types of measurements have common interests at heart:
"We tend to focus on land surface temperatures, because, well, that’s where we live. And human greenhouse gas emissions have ensured their steady rise since the start of the Industrial Revolution, punctuated by 2014 setting the record for hottest year.

But surface heat is but a fraction of the climate change equation. Only 7 percent of the heat being trapped by greenhouse gases is sticking around in the surface and atmosphere of the planet. The other 93 percent? That's ending up in the ocean, though some scientists expect some of that heat will eventually find its way back to the surface and trigger even more warming."
(Climate Central, emphasis added). The researchers often mention the percentage of atmospheric heat entering the ocean as if it always takes place at the same rate, the same percentage:
"For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence."
(Yale Environment, emphasis added). Another peer indicates:
"Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) drives the ongoing global warming and can best be assessed across the historical record (that is, since 1960) from ocean heat content (OHC) changes. An accurate assessment of OHC is a challenge, mainly because of insufficient and irregular data coverage. We provide updated OHC estimates with the goal of minimizing associated sampling error."
(Science Advances, emphasis added, also see an NCAR piece @ Phys.org). My issue, today, is how to determine the following:
"Since 1955, over 90% of the excess heat (GeoPhys Letters) trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored in the oceans ..."
(OSIP, emphasis added). Since the laws of thermodynamics do not mention any clock that times heat transfer, I must ask "what clock does that timing?" (On The Origin of Ghost Heat & Temperature, On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 9).

Thermal dynamics is a very busy section of peer reviewed science research:
"For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community. Nearly all of the measurable indicators of global climate change—such as sea level, ice cover on land and sea, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—show a world changing on short, medium, and long time scales. But for the better part of a decade, global surface temperatures appeared to level off. The overall, long-term trend was upward, but the climb was less steep from 2003–2012. Some scientists, the media, and climate contrarians began referring to it as “the hiatus.”

Fig. 4 PSMSL data
If greenhouse gases are still increasing and all other indicators show warming-related change, why wouldn’t surface temperatures keep climbing steadily, year after year? One of the leading explanations offered by scientists was that extra heat was being stored in the ocean.

Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science."
(NASA, emphasis added). I immediately wonder, since the average ocean depth is about 3682.2 m, how much did they miss at only about one tenth of the way down, i.e. how much heat was deeper (much deeper)?

IV. Is The Measuring The Problem?

The graph at Fig. 3 shows the pattern of 93% of the atmospheric heat, 10% of that collecting in the upper 10% of the ocean depths, and 90% of that atmospheric heat collecting in the lower 90% of the ocean depths.

The graph at Fig. 2 shows the lack of continuity, because the pattern of heat leaving the atmosphere and entering the ocean does not match the pattern that ocean temperature measurements make.

The graph at Fig. 4 shows sea level change measured at 1,482 tide gauge stations around the world.

These patterns begs the question, "are we not measuring in a proper way?" that would develop a comprehensive and robust representation of what is happening with the heat, i.e., is it naturally that way, are the measurements taken at the right places, at enough places, or what?

V. Conclusion

I think you can see why I keep working this issue.

We need a consistent policy concerning Global Warming's impact on the ocean, in terms of heat distribution, so that we can more accurately project ocean changes.

That would mean understanding all major aspects of sea level changes and what causes those changes (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

In the absence of that there will be a lot of peer flailing-around.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 20

Fig. 1 A fusion of GISTEMP & WOD data
I. Some History

The notion of thermal expansion being the major cause of sea level volume change in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries (over 200 years?) has little substantive support in the scientific literature record.

The records I review indicate a conflicting series of opinions based on a conflicting series of computer software models, even in the official government version of this issue:
A variety of ocean models have been employed for estimates of ocean thermal expansion ... the best estimate of thermal expansion from 1880 to
Fig. 2
1990 was 43 mm (with a range of 31 to 57 mm) (Warrick et al., 1996) ... De Wolde et al. (1995, 1997) developed a two dimensional (latitude-depth, zonally averaged) ocean model, with similar physics to the UD model. Their best estimate of ocean thermal expansion in a model forced by observed sea surface temperatures over the last 100 years was 35 mm (with a range of 22 to 51 mm) ...
(IPCC). The non-government view of the issue is somewhat similar:
The AOGCMs agree that sea-level rise is expected to be geographically
Fig. 3 PSMSL data
non-uniform, with some regions experiencing as much as twice the global average, and others practically zero, but they do not agree about the geographical pattern. The lack of agreement indicates that we cannot currently have con®dence in projections of local sea-level changes, and reveals a need for detailed analysis and intercomparison in order to understand and reduce the disagreements.
(Climate Dynamics, 2001). They seem to be utterly unaware of Woodward 1888, or more recently, Harvard Professor Mitrovica's work (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 47).

Thus, the equation given, is missing something hidden in plain sight:
Because GMSL and estimates of the steric and mass components have different uncertainties and the potential for systematic errors, one often investigates the sea level budget to see how well it closes:
GMSL(t) = GMSLmass(t) + GMSLsteric(t)
At any particular time, t, the residual (GMSL(t) - GMSLmass(t) - GMSLsteric(t)) is unlikely to be exactly zero due to random and short-period errors. However, over the long-term, the residual differences should be small. When they are not, it indicates a problem in one or more of the terms in Eq. (1).
(Evaluation of the Global Mean Sea Level Budget). IMO the complete formula is GMSL(t) = GMSLmass(t) + GMSLsteric(t) + GMSLrelocated mass(t), where "relocated mass" is the ocean portion that is hidden in plain sight and therefore what I call "ghost
Fig. 4
water" (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

II. One Helpful Technique

For that reason, as regular readers know, I have been working on some techniques that allow us to have a better handle on the matter.

Since I like to use in situ measurements whenever possible, I have figured a way to fuse GISTEMP temperature records (1880-2016) with World Ocean Database (WOD) records (1956-2016).

Fig. 5
This allows us to generate a thermal expansion / contraction mapping of those same years (Fig. 1).

The basic concept is that currently some percentage of the heat entering the Earth ecosystem cannot escape back into space because of green house gases.

In terms of temperature, currently 93% of it enters the oceans.

We can follow that 93% because it leaves "fingerprints," in the form of warming ocean temperatures, as it makes its way into the ocean, leaving some 7% in the atmosphere and land above sea level.

Before I discovered this technique (yesterday) I did it this way: The World According To Measurements - 6.

III. How The Fusion Is Done

I combine the GISS temperature data with the WOD ocean temperature data using:
GISS + WOD
-------------------
2
That is, the GISS temperature for a given year (of which 93% is headed to the ocean anyway) is added to the WOD temperature already in the ocean, and then the average of the two is derived by division.

The actual C++ source code line in the module looks like this:
"T = (wodData[ypos+1].avgT + gissData[ypos+1].temperatureAnomaly) / 2 ;"

To see how this is reasonable notice this arithmetic:

(1880) -0.2 (GISS) + -0.136533 (WOD) = −0.336533
−0.336533 ÷ 2 = −0.1682665
(ocean temp increase of: -0.1682665 minus -0.136533 = −0.0317335)

(2016) 0.98 (GISS) + 0.597801 (WOD) = 1.577801
1.577801 ÷ 2 = 0.7889005
(ocean temp increase of: 0.7889005 minus 0.597801 = 0.1910995)

The 93% of recent larger temperatures (year 2016) blends, during the process, with 93% of increasingly smaller temperatures (year 1880).

So the "fusion" balances itself out over time (I will work on perfecting the percentages as time goes on).

The pattern of the GISS temperature anomaly shown in Fig. 1 (top) is reasonably closely aligned with the thermal expansion / contraction pattern also shown in Fig. 1 (bottom), and with the sea level change reported by tide gauge stations around the world (Fig. 3).

The graphs at Fig. 2, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5 show the TEOS-10 components (Absolute Salinity, Conservative Temperature, and Sea Pressure, which are factors that pull the pattern in various conflicting directions).

The thermal coefficient is generated by the TEOS-10 toolbox function gsw_alpha, and the steric volume changes are generated using the formula for volumetric, or cubical, expansion:

V = volume
T = temperature
β = thermal expansion coefficient
ΔV = V0 β ΔT
or
V1 = V0 * β * (T0 - T1)
(Physics Hypertextbook). The good thing to remember is that the numbers used are actual ocean and atmospheric data, not merely numbers generated by models.

IV. Conclusion

The thermosteric volume change percentage that is derived using this technique is smaller than the percentage generated with the technique I was using previously (The World According To Measurements - 6).

The previous post in this series is here.