Monday, September 25, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 3

Fig. 1 GISS temp anomaly pattern (1880-2016)
I. A Test Case

I have added a test-case to the thermal expansion calculation modules.

It is a multi-purpose test case with a fixed ocean temperature system based on the boundary values of the various ocean basins.

The test-case software module is used to show the difference between thermosteric volume change in the constant-mass scenario compared to the changing volume scenario (Eustatic vs. Steric).

That is, the proper way to test for and/or calculate thermal expansion / contraction is to do so in a fixed (unchanging) mass-quantity of water (On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 2).

When the mass changes and the calculation of thermal expansion / contraction continues unabated, the increase in mass is likely to conflate eustatic changes with thermosteric changes, thus invalid results are likely to ensue (ibid).

To establish a fixed environment as a context for the test-case, I used my SQL database of ranges built from the WOD manual @ Appendix 11.1 and 11.2 (WOD Manual, p. 132; PDF page 142).

That sets the stage for testing, but first ...

II. WOD Update

The World Ocean Database (WOD) has posted its latest update (August).

It used to be a daunting task to integrate the updates into my system, but I have modified
Fig. 2 Home of The World Ocean Database
some of the conversion software so that it is a breeze now, compared to past updates, which take place about every quarter.

I thought I would show the graph changes that resulted from the additional ~50 million ocean temperature, depth, and salinity in situ measurements, which the update added to the SQL database.

 III. Hang Onto Your Hat

The import of the test-case module results can be grasped at once by looking at Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b.

Fig. 3a
These two graphs compare in situ temperature and salinity measurements with what should be expected in ocean basins that absorb 93% of the global increase in atmospheric (surface) heating.
Fig. 3b

The black line on each graph is the calculated norm that is to be expected by a uniform warming of ocean basins.

The red colored graph line on each graph is the pattern which actual measurements have recorded (actual measurements in the CTD and PFL datasets of the WOD).

As you can see, there is a radical contrast.

It doesn't mean that the measurements are wrong, or that the abstract is wrong, instead, it tells us that we need to take measurements in the same way and for the same reasons we have chosen to use the Golden 23 Zones.

That is, we seek measurements that produce a balanced representation of the oceans as a whole.

For example, if we take all of our in situ water temperature and salinity measurements in the Arctic ocean area, we will have an unbalanced set of data from which to analyze ocean temperature thermodynamics of the entire world oceans.

The same will result if we take all of our measurements in the tropics.

Also, that same result can be expected for unbalanced combinations where our mix of measurements is focused too much on one area or the other.

IV. The Abstract Graphs

Fig. 4a
The abstract graphs are Fig. 4a through Fig. 4i.
Fig. 4b

Fig. 4c
These graphs show not only test patterns of both the measurement values and changes in those values (both should have the same pattern when the software is working properly), they also show what are a collection of patterns to be expected in a uniformly warming environment.

They show what the software module calculations would expect global warming of the surface to produce in the oceans.

Fig. 4a is ocean mass, Fig. 4b is thermosteric volume expected when a constant water mass is analyzed, Fig. 4c is Conservative Temperature, Fig. 4d is Absolute Salinity, Fig. 4e is sea level, Fig. 4f is GISS global temperature average anomaly since 1880 compared to sea level change during that same span of time, Fig. 4g is thermal expansion and contraction when a variable mass is used in the equation, Fig. 4h is expected ocean salinity, and Fig. 4i is expected ocean temperature.
Fig. 4d

Fig. 4e
V. The Clincher Test
Fig. 4f

Fig. 4g
When we look at Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b (actual measurement patterns compared to the expected patterns) we have to "go figure."
Fig. 4h

Fig. 4i
It is no secret at all that the oceans are not quiet back yard pools or stable bathtubs offering an easy place to take all the measurements we want to take.

The oceans are hard places to work in, and can be life threatening at about any time.

I have been across some of the feisty ones on a small wooden boat in winter time with only one other person to share the "adventure."

They are all the more dangerous if you are not constantly aware of what is around, under, and over you.

Plus what is coming at you, or might be coming at you, so one can't just do measurements our there without being prepared for danger and/or trouble.

Measurements out there do not come cheap or easily.

So, we need a way to analyze the data we have in a manner that can also tell us where and with what we need to update and to balance out our datasets.

VI. Making The Test Graphs

You will notice a similarity in the GISS surface temperature anomaly graph patterns (Fig. 1, Fig. 4f) when compared with other patterns.

That is because I use the GISS pattern to inform the others.

That is, the GISS represents warming increases caused by captured green house gases.

Some 93% of that finds its way into the oceans, so it is a sound hypothesis to consider that the oceans will warm accordingly.

Of course there are variations, exceptions, and differences, but it makes for a worthwhile pattern to look for in the abstract.

For example, Fig. 4f is composed of measurements taken from safe locations at weather stations and tide gauge stations around the world.

They have a similar pattern because one (GISS) causes the other (PSMSL), because warming melts the Cryosphere and the melt water is relocated into the oceans.

The values of sea level change match the pattern that values of atmospheric changes make.

The same is validly expected in the mass of the oceans.

The pattern of warming causes a pattern of sea level change which causes a similar pattern of ocean mass change.

There is a reasonably equal expectation with ocean water temperature (when considered as a whole) and salinity, in terms of an abstract test case.

VII. Conclusion

There are a lot of things to look at, ponder, and analyze with this test case scenario.

For example, do the in situ temperature and salinity graph lines in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b tell us anything about our WOD dataset?

Like maybe in the 1960's, what with the red measurement line being above the expected location for the black graph line, and then dropping down below the black line, that deeper (colder) measurements became more technically possible ... or did northern measurements exceed southern measurements?

Or perhaps was there a lot of cold melt-water injected into the oceans to cause cooling (see Humble Oil-Qaeda)?

There are a lot of possibilities.

It can't all be discussed in one post, so stay tuned if you like.

The previous post in this series is here.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us? - 13

Fig. 1 A seismograph becomes a trend-o-graph
I. Background

About 7.5 years ago I penned Global Warming & Volcanic Eruptions.

Shortly following that (about a month later), I began a series on the issue.

This series has covered the subject over the several years since its inception (Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12); however the last post in this series (#12) took place almost a year ago.

So, today we continue the discussion of this important, overlooked, but strongly ongoing issue (Fig. 1).

II. Not Much Mediocrity Mediacrity Has Changed

As the USGS reports, not much has changed, except perhaps that in the last few days
Fig. 2 More graphs here
earthquake coverage has inhabited the mass mediasphere.

As has been said, "All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance." Will Rogers

Which in whole or in part can lead to a particular world view as to what is important and what is not  ("The old newspaper adage, 'If it bleeds, it leads,' is as true today as it was a century ago." Peter Diamandis); thus, foreseeing an oncoming reality becomes less important than reacting to it once it has arrived, because the media disdains foresight as it clings to bleeding breaking news.

III. Some New Insights On Old Insights

This series has focused on the reality that there is more than meets the eye concerning the actual nature of the impacts of sea level change.

For example, there is more than merely impacts to coast lines and coast line maps, more than refugees having to move further inland, and more than the ongoing and upcoming retreat of world seaports (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Fig. 3 Humble Oil-Qaeda
The impacts I am now talking about are the changes in pressures upon the Earth's crust.

Those impacts concern both a decrease in pressure in some areas, as well as an increase of pressure in other areas.

One reason for that type of change is that the great weight of ice sheets releases pressure from the land beneath them as they melt and flow into the ocean.

Their watery residue then creates pressure in various far away places where their melt water has relocated to.

Not only that, the loss of their gravity, which was once pulling water toward and upon them, frees that large quantity of water from being bound up against them (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

This phenomenon is not limited to the waters around Greenland and Antarctica (Proof of Concept - 3).

That once-gravity-trapped water will then flow away from its place to decrease pressure there, but to increase pressure elsewhere (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

"So what?" you may wonder.

IV. The Answer

The previous question is answered by "glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)" as discussed in Mitrovica, et al., (2015), a PDF file.

The bidirectional up and down GIA causes torque, stress, and tension between crustal movement upwards and crustal movement downward.

Likewise, the speed-up and slow-down of the Earth's rotation, as a result of those changes in the Earth's shape, also cause additional torque, stress, and tension on the crust (ibid).

Those rotational speed changes cause changes in shape that engender a shape that is closer to a perfect globe, for awhile, then other speed changes make further changes to a shape that is closer to an imperfect globe shape.

Those contortions and changes force, in various degrees, a release of impediments to earthquakes and volcanism in some places, while impeding, in various degrees, earthquakes and volcanism in other areas.

V. Conclusion 

Remember that the 1750 Industrial Revolution began to inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere long ago, which has increased climate and sea level change since then.

As the graphs in earlier posts of this series show, seismic and volcanic activity have also increased during this, the Anthropocene (Fig. 2).

The previous post in this series is here.

Who knew (Fig. 3)?

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 2

Fig. 1a
I. Background

I have been surprised by the outcome of using the TEOS-10 thermodynamics toolkit.

Fig. 1b
As regular readers know, for the longest time I calculated thermal expansion caused volume change as a percentage of sea level change.

Fig. 1c
That percentage was 5.1% calculated from actual sea level change minus the ghost water percentage.

Even that 5.1% was lower than current establishment science calculates, which was said to be more than sea level change caused by the melting of the Cryosphere.

II. Along Comes TEOS-10

Looking for possibly a more accurate way to calculate the percentages that thermal expansion and contraction (thermosteric) contribute to sea level change, I ran across the TEOS-10 Toolkit (TEOS-10 Website).

I made various experimental attempts to calculate thermal expansion values with the TEOS-10 toolkit, partnering it up with the traditional formula for such calculations and WOD, PSMSL, and GISS data.

Fig. 2a
Then I came across a bombshell paper which narrowed down the remaining techniques to two.
Fig. 2b

That bombshell paper pointed out the following:
Fig. 2c
"A common practice in sea level research is to analyze separately the variability of the steric and mass components of sea level. However, there are conceptual and practical issues that have sometimes been misinterpreted, leading to erroneous and contradictory conclusions on regional sea level variability. The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant."
(On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques, quoting from JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: OCEANS, VOL. 118, 953–963, doi:10.1002/jgrc.20060, by Gabriel Jordà and Damià Gomis, 2013; @p. 953, 954, emphasis added). That certainly can change things.

III. Along Comes New Graphs

And so, today's graphs are presented to show the stark difference between the results of those two techniques mentioned in the paper.

Fig. 3a
The graphs are numbered in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 groups, each group having an 'a', a 'b', and a 'c' member graph.

Fig. 3b
The 'a' member of each graph group is in compliance with the paper quoted above, which sternly points out:
"The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component [thermosteric] does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant." (ibid, emphasis added).
Fig. 3c

In other words, one must calculate the ocean volume from the 1st year a calculation of sea level change commences.

Then one must use that same quantity throughout all the other years of that span of time being calculated and graphed.

That is, the increasing and decreasing sea levels (ocean mass and volume changes) over a span of time are not to be used if one seeks to present an accurate estimation / calculation of thermosteric volume change over that span of time.

IV. The Tide Gauge Station Selections

In these graphs I present the two techniques using three lists of tide gauge stations: Fig. 1 group) 491 stations used by Church & White (2011), Fig. 2 group) all stations (1,484), and Fig. 3 group) "the Golden 23".

The 'a' member in each of those three groups shows the calculation mandated by the paper quoted in Section II.

As you can see, the thermal expansion calculations show significantly less sea level change caused by thermosteric dynamics than the old Dredd Blog 5.1% method shows.

Yikes !

Can "thermal expansion as the main cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" be that much of a myth?

V. How I Process The Data

I won't go through the arduous task of building a billion rows of SQL based data after downloading that data from PSMSL, WOD, and GISSTEMP.

I won't go through the software architectural work of designing software modules to analyze that data.

Today, let's just look at how the completed modules handle that data, beginning with TEOS-10 functions.

First we acquire in situ (at a specific latitude, longitude location) temperature along with in situ salinity ("practical salinity") readings from a specific ocean depth at that location.

Let's call them 'T' (temperature) 'SP' (practical salinity) and 'Z' (a depth or 'height' in TEOS parlance).

First we convert those in situ values into TEOS values:

1) Z into P (pressure) using the TEOS function P = "gsw_p_from_z(double z, double lat)";

2) SA using  SA = "gsw_sa_from_sp(double sp, double p, double lon, double lat)";

3) T into "conservative temperature" CT = "gsw_ct_from_t(double sa, double t, double p)";

Now, we can calculate the all important "thermal expansion coefficient"
(symbol 'β') β = "gsw_alpha(double sa, double ct, double p)".

Last but not least, we use a traditional formula for calculating thermal expansion / contraction volume change: V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT) as I noted early on in the struggle:
The one I settled on is: V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT), where: V1 means new volume, V0 means original volume, β means temperature coefficient, and ΔT means change in temperature (T1 - T0), which is another way of "saying" dV = V0 β (t1 - t0), a formula in widespread use (Engineering Toolbox, cf here).
(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 18). When calculating a long span of years, the "ΔT" becomes the previous years temperature minus the current year's temperature (change in temperature), or vice versa depending on the direction (backwards in time, or forward in time) in which you are calculating.

VI. Discussion Of The Graphs

The 'a' member of each graph group features what happens when the mass-volume (V0) remains constant as conservative temperature (CT), absolute salinity (SA), and pressure change over time.

The 'b' member graphs the temperature and salinity changes.

The 'c' member shows what happens when the volume (V0) changes along with the temperature and salinity.

The difference in the thermal expansion / contraction is dramatic between the two usages (constant volume, variable volume).

VII. Conclusion

There is more work to do to figure out just how the oceanographers calculate thermosteric volume.

Any suggestions?

The previous post in this series is here.

Friday, September 15, 2017

On Thermal Expansion &Thermal Contraction - 23

Fig. 1a Constant Ocean Mass & Volume
I. I Repeat Myself

I reread Church, White (2011) (PDF) in light of the post concerning the inconsistent calculations of thermosteric sea level change (thermal expansion / contraction).

Like others who were mystified by "the European problem" they flounder, because they do not mention, let alone understand, the gravity of ice sheets (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

Therefore, neither do they comprehend the Dredd Blog discussions of the phenomenon of ghost water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Go figure (these guys still haven't discovered gravity: On the rate and causes of twentieth century sea-level rise, PDF).

II. But I Fulfill (Most of) My Promises

Fig. 1b Variable Ocean Mass & Volume
Today I want to fulfill the promise I made in a recent post:
"In future posts I will use the same PSMSL tide gauge stations that the authors in journal papers used in their papers, in order to further expand upon the concepts addressed in today's post."
(On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques). In the paper Church, White (2011) they used 491 PSMSL tide gauge station data ("We use ... data ... from ... PSMSL" p. 587), so, that seems like a tall order.

Not to worry, Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b are graphs using the same 491 PSMSL tide gauge stations that they used, excluding "metric" data (I don't use the "Metric" data, as recommended by PSMSL here).

III. The Same Old Story Emerges

Their selection of PSMSL data does nothing to change the reality that if you do not discuss ice sheet gravity dynamics, you don't get it (see Mitrovica video below).

The graphs I provided here (where I made, and today fulfilled, a promise) shout out the same message as today's graphs do (Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b).

That message is the message shouted out for all that consider the four corners of the scenario, which is to say that the assertion indicating "thermal expansion is the main cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" is not supported by robust analysis (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21).

IV. Conclusion

According to Dr. Mitrovica, a lot of the fault for the problem discussed in this series is the obsession with the mythical bathtub model (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water, 2, 3, 4).

The previous post in this series is here.

Professor Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University: