Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Etiology of Social Dementia - 17

An etiological exercise
Over eight years ago I started this series concerning the origin of "social dementia" (Etiology of Social Dementia, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16).

By "social dementia" I mean the dynamics of cultures, civilizations, societies, and groups (not individuals).

In other words, when large numbers of people go crazy for the same reasons during the same span of time.

I have quoted A. Toynbee, who studied some 26 civilizations, then, after mulling it over, wrote: "In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." (Etiology of Social Dementia - 13).

Concerning Toynbee's work, a premier encyclopedia has refined that statement a bit, by specifying how Toynbee indicated that the suicide or murder takes place: "In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces" (Encyclopedia Britannica, emphasis added). I am reminded of: “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization” (Ralph Waldo Emerson).

One of America's forefathers, some years prior to Toynbee, explained how the madness develops in a culture like ours:
"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."
(James Madison). The U.S. has become imperialistic, hegemonic, and addicted to the notion of war as a cure-all, rather than seeing it as a cultural dementia (Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?, 2, 3).

Some years after my initiation of this series, an interesting book came out.

Part of its title is "How Culture Shapes Madness" which is in accord with the thrust and essence of this current series and others (Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala, 2, 3, 4).

An interesting observation, in a review of that book, is worth contemplating:
"There is a pattern of circumstances that can make us more vulnerable to delusions and schizophrenia, the authors write. We all have a “suspicion system” that is always on the lookout for threats to us. When it is functioning properly, we are protected. When it malfunctions, we have problems, such as feeling that we are actors watched and controlled by others."
(Psych Central, Suspicious Minds: How Culture Shapes Madness). There is ample evidence that our culture has "lost it."

For example, consider our cultural "suspicion system" and its vastness:
* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.
(The Homeland: Big Brother Plutonomy, quoting the Washington Post). After trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars are spent because of paranoid delusions, we now fret about Russia taking over our elections (instead of fretting over our incompetence).

The demented among us are so addicted to war as "a cure," that they are now trying to destroy national systems that take care of citizens:
"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."
(Your Health Is Their Number 1 Enemy?!). The domestic enemies within us compose the despotic minority who Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned as the focus of Toynbee, when he studied and figured out the dementias of the previous ~26 civilizations that have committed suicide.

Suicide is a suspicious activity for civilizations to embrace and carry out (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

As I have written several times, S. Freud was ahead of the curve on this (because he saw it coming) long ago:
"If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities." [p. 39]
"Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature
to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension." [p. 40]"
(Civilization and Its Discontents, S. Freud, 1929, emphasis added). This brings up a question that is not limited to the Dredd Blog realm: Is This Country Crazy?

The previous post in this series is here.

One of the authors of "Suspicious Minds: How Culture Shapes Madness":

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 26

Fig. 1a First graph of this series
Fig. 1b Thermal Expansion
Today, let's look at thermal expansion and contraction at each depth level.

But first, let's remember that all "water contracts (decreases in volume) when heated."

What ??!!??

That is just as true as the most oft quoted statement concerning the thermosteric dynamics of water, which is: "water expands (increases in volume) when heated."

The ghost dynamic in these statements is that whether thermal expansion or thermal contraction takes place in any case depends on the in situ temperature of the water at the time when the hotness or coldness is applied to that water.

Regular readers know that this series started by pointing out that thermal expansion is not the only "thermal" in town (never forget thermal contraction).

The graphs at Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b  show both of the thermal dynamic players in the game.
Fig. 2

The gist of what is portrayed in those graphs is that there is both thermal expansion and thermal contraction (when water is heated or when water is cooled it expands (increases in volume) or it contracts (decreases in volume) depending on the in situ temperature when that warming or cooling takes place.

Fig. 3
Note that those graphs were done before I discovered TEOS-10, a toolkit developed by scientific organizations (Thermodynamic Equation of SeaWater 2010).
Fig. 4

TEOS-10 is a toolkit that makes calculating and graphing thermosteric volume change (thermal expansion & contraction) more accurate, meaningful, and certainly more professional in terms of coherency and consistency.
Fig. 5

The other graphs in today's post (Fig. 2 thru Fig. 9) show actual (not hypothetical) thermal expansion and contraction at various depths using TEOS-10 values (e.g. SA, CT, and P) that are calculated and computed from in situ practical salinity, temperature, and depth measurements stored in the World Ocean Database.
Fig. 6

Fig. 7
In other words, the salinity, temperature, and depth measurements involved are real measurements taken by real scientists at work in "the field."
Fig. 8

I think that the real graphs of the real situation at the various depths of the real oceans of the world support and validate the hypothetical assertions made by Dredd Blog over the years and also in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b.

Who in their right mind is going to deny the existence of both thermal expansion and thermal contraction in terms of thermodynamic reality?

After all, any and all measurements in the CTD and PFL datasets of the World Ocean Database (about a billion) were used to produce graphs at Fig. 2 thru Fig. 9.

Now that we have been brave enough to admit the existence of thermal contraction, we can consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I mean that we can do so at least in the sense of the movement of heat in the oceans (which has one and only one direction) which is from warm to cold (NASA, Univ. of Winnipeg).

The big take home from this is that heat in the ocean is always on the move spontaneously when the lawful conditions arise.

That movement is shown in the graphs as upward and downward lines of expansion and contraction while the flow of time moves horizontally.

I want us to also remember that this flow can reverse direction under certain lawful conditions.

Fig. 9
For example, when the water below is colder than the water above, the heat will spontaneously tend to move downward, but when that water above later becomes cooler than the water below, the warmth will move upwards rather than downwards.

By downward and upward, I am in reference to to the depth level.

We see that happening in these graphs too.

So my fellow citizen scientists, let's all remember that "the ice of Greenland and Antarctica is seriously melting."

The previous post in this series is here.

The ice is seriously melting ... (Dr. Eric Rignot) ...

Monday, October 16, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 6

Fig. 1 SA 0-200 m
In this series I have provided some views on how best to calculate and compute thermal expansion and contraction with the in situ measurements available in the World Ocean Database (WOD).

One important event in that process is the use of the TEOS-10 toolkit provided by the scientific community (On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques, 2, 3, 4, 5).

The importance of TEOS-10 should not be underestimated:
Fig. 2 SA 201-400 m
"On climatic time scales, melting ice caps and regional deviations of the hydrological cycle result in changes of seawater salinity, which in turn may modify the global circulation of the oceans and their ability to store heat and to buffer anthropogenically produced carbon dioxide." (Abstract, Metrologia 53 (2016), R1)

Fig. 3 SA 401-600 m
"Melting polar glaciers raise the sea level and influence the surface salinity distribution, and in turn may affect the large scale vertical and horizontal circulations in the oceans which continuously store, release or displace huge amounts of heat and dissolved gases." (ibid, R2)

"It is evident from climatology and geosciences that atmospheric
Fig. 4 SA 601-800 m
relative humidity, ocean salinity and seawater pH are key parameters for observing, modelling and analysing the increasing effects of global warming on ecosystems and society. However, despite their widespread use and relevance, the metrological underpinning of these parameters is inadequate, relies on century old provisional concepts, lacks
Fig. 5 SA 801-1000 m
traceability to the SI, or suffers from ambiguities and deficiencies of definitions, conventions and measurement techniques. The recent introduction of the international standard TEOS-10, the Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater 2010 (IOC et al 2010), has raised new awareness of these long standing and increasingly urgent problems, and has at the same time offered new perspectives for overcoming them.
" (ibid)
(IOP Science, PDF, emphasis added). The PDF is well worth downloading (no cost) and is filled with helpful reasoning as to why coherence is in the cards since the introduction of TEOS-10.

Fig. 6 SA 1001-3000 m
I have provided some source code as an example for using TEOS-10 (The Art of Making Thermal Expansion Graphs).

Thermal expansion and contraction is claimed to have been the major factor in sea level change for a century or so, and is claimed to have been more of a factor way back when than it is now (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, 22, 23, 24, 25).

Fig. 7 SA >3000 m
That assertion does not pass the smell test when, at the same time, it is also asserted that global warming has been increasing, with most of the increasing heat (~93%) ending up in the oceans.

The TEOS-10 and other formulas show that thermal expansion has decreased over the past ~50 years, even as more heat has been going into the ocean (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 25).

Fig. 8 SA All depths
Based on the in situ ocean temperature and salinity measurements processed by TEOS, ice sheet melt in Greenland and Antarctica has been going on in greater amounts and for a longer time than previously thought (Antarctica 2.0, 2).

Today's graphs focus on Absolute Salinity, an advanced concept for not only studying ocean water thermodynamics, but also for clarity and consistency (see  IOP Science link above).

Like temperature, Absolute Salinity (SA) varies with depth, and does so in a non-intuitive manner from time to time.

In these graphs (Fig. 1 thru Fig. 7) I used the usual Dredd Blog depth levels to show each level compared to the mean average of all the depths.

In the graph at Fig. 8 I placed all depths, along with the mean average again, on one graph.

It shows a relatively stable Absolute Salinity, the largest departure from the pack being the shallowest level (Fig. 1).

That probably reflects ongoing surface water freshening due to ice sheet and glacial melt acceleration.

Remember what the experts wrote in the quotes above: "Melting polar glaciers raise the sea level and influence the surface salinity distribution, and in turn may affect the large scale vertical and horizontal circulations in the oceans" (see IOP Science link above).

The previous post in this series is here.

Saturday, October 14, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 25

Fig. 1a Conservative Temperature
Fig. 1b CT Average
In the Thermodynamic Equation of SeaWater 2010 (TEOS-10) scheme of things, Conservative Temperature (CT), Absolute Salinity (SA), and Pressure (P) are key players.

CT is derived from in situ (measured) temperature taken at a given location using the function gsw_ct_from_t.

SA is derived from in situ (measured) salinity taken at a given location using the function gsw_sa_from_sp.

P is derived from measured depth at a given latitude using the function gsw_p_from_z.

The graph at Fig. 1a shows CT at the typical Dredd Blog "seven depth levels" (depth is 'height' in TEOS parlance), with one of the graph lines being the median (mean average).
Fig. 2a Absolute Salinity
Fig. 2b SA Average

The graph at Fig. 1b shows the average CT of those seven depth levels.

In like fashion, the graphs at Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b show the same for SA.
Fig. 3a Thermal Expansion / Contraction
Fig. 3b Thermal Expansion / Contraction Average

Since P is a function of depth, the pressure is derived from the depth of each CT and SA  in situ measurement.

The big story in today's post is the calculation of changes in thermal expansion and contraction at each of those depth levels.

The graph at Fig. 3a shows the changes in thermosteric volume at the seven depth levels, including a mean average of all seven combined.

The graph at Fig. 3b shows the average of those thermosteric volume changes.

The span of time involved begins in 1968 and ends in 2016, using all WOD measurements from all zones.

That span of time is due to my use of CTD and PFL datasets of the World Ocean Database (WOD).

I don't use the data acquired by older methods of gathering in situ measurements, preferring the more advanced gathering technology.

About half a century of data collection is recorded in the CTD and PFL datasets (about a billion temperature, salinity, and depth measurements).

As you can see in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b, the results are not intuitive.

The results depart from the current thinking that thermal expansion has been the main source of sea level rise for a century.

The net result for the 1968-2016 span of time is a net -2171.6305236 km3 thermal contraction (not thermal expansion).

That value equates to about a 6 mm [~1/4 inch] thermosteric volume decrease (-2171.6305236 ÷ 361.841 = −6.001615416 mm [-0.236284071 inch]) ...  (the 361.841 value is the number of cubic kilometers necessary to raise the global mean average sea level by one millimeter).

Regular readers know that I have been experimenting to find a better way to calculate these values, and at this point I think using the seven ocean depth levels method is working well.

I have used the seven depth levels method with in situ temperature and salinity for quite a while.

The formulas for deriving the calculations were shown previously, along with the actual source code that does it (The Art of Making Thermal Expansion Graphs).

One difference in today's work is that the ten temperatures used in that linked-to example ("5.5,6.5,7.5,8.0,8.5,8.0,7.5,7.0,6.5,6.0, 5.5") are replaced with about a billion measured values that are used to produce the graphs shown in today's post.

What is most important in this calculation sequence (Fig. 3a) is that the individual depth levels' mass-volume must first be determined before calculating the thermal expansion coefficient.

That is because the seven depth levels don't all have the same mass-volume. (e.g. the 0-200 m level is different from the 1001-3000 m level in terms of mass-volume).

Notice in Fig. 3a that the depth level with the most thermal expansion is the >3000 m level (non-intuituve).

All the heat going into the oceans tends to move from warmer water to colder water over time.

As the heat works its way through the ocean basins, it causes expansion and contraction individual to that basin and the particular depth level.

BTW, the eustatic (non-thermal) sea level change graphs, measured by tide gauge stations featured in today's graphs, are posted here.

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

The ice is melting ... (Dr. Eric Rignot) ...

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The Art of Making Thermal Expansion Graphs

Gardens By The Bay
It has been a while since I published any C++ source code (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 49).

The last one, linked to above, had to do with some of the simple basics of sea level rise calculations.

As with ghost-water (NASA Busts The Ghost), calculating thermal expansion is another one of those "mysto" areas being focused on by scientists.

Today, I present source code written in the C++ programming language.

It is real code, but the data is limited to a ten episode (e.g. year) range., nevertheless, it shows how the thermosteric volume of the ocean can change even if the mass volume does not.

Those thermosteric volume changes are caused by temperature change in the body of water.

Before we look at the code and what it produces, here are some comments about the subject:
"To be a bit more scientific about the matter before we end, let’s quote an interesting study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published in 2013 in PNAS (called ‘The Multi-millenial sea level commitment of global warming’). This research group thinks of the final future sea level rise Greenland would contribute about 25 percent, Antarctica (combined) about 50 percent, smaller glaciers about 5 percent – and thermal expansion about 20 percent."
(Bits of Science). There is another paper which I have quoted that points out a wide spread problem of improper calculations routinely done in this matter (On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 5).

Some of the models are even older than some of the software advances in recent years (e.g. TEOS-10 toolkit), as regular readers know.

But there are other issues too:
"The thermal expansion of the ocean has been investigated by a spectrum of climate models of different complexity, ranging from zero-dimensional diffusion models ... via Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) ... to comprehensive general circulation models ... Although uncertainty remains, especially owing to uncertainty in the ocean circulation and thereby the distribution of heat within the ocean, the physical processes are relatively well understood even if not fully represented in all models."
(The multimillennial sea-level commitment of global warming). Scientists are not unified as to whether or not thermal expansion is a or the major cause of sea level rise.

A recent paper points this out:
"On the basis of the GRACE data, we conclude that most of the change in ocean mass is caused by the melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers. This contribution of ice melt is larger than previous estimates, but agrees with reports of accelerated ice melt in recent years."
(Nature). One limiting factor is calculating the thermal coefficient of sea water (Thermal expansion co-efficient of sea water), which the TEOS-10 toolkit solves nicely with the gsw_alpha function.

Anyway, here is the software code:

/** std C++ header files */
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <iomanip>

/** TEOS header file */
#include <gswteos-10 .h>

using namespace std;

V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT)
V1 means new volume
V0 means original volume
β means thermal expansion coefficient
ΔT means change in temperature (t1 - t0)
double thermalExpansion(double currentOceanVolume, /** V0 */
                                          double tec, /** β */
                                          double t1, /** ΔT half */
                                          double t0) /** ΔT half */
        double V0 = currentOceanVolume;
        double B = tec;
        double DT = t1 - t0;
        double V1 = V0*(1 + B * DT);

        return V1;

This sample program
calculates thermal
expansion & contraction
from a list of ocean water
temperatures which
represent in situ

Those in situ measurements
are converted to TEOS
values via TEOS
(gsw_....) functions.
int main()
         volume acquired at: Live Science
        const double oceanVol2010 = 1332370930.2; /** cu km */

        number of cubic kilometers per millimeter of sea level change
        const double cuKmPerMm = 361.841;

        /** maximum number of temperatures */
        const unsigned maxTemperatures = 11;

        /** in situ temperatures, in degrees C */
        const double temperatures[maxTemperatures] =
        {5.5,6.5,7.5,8.0,8.5,8.0,7.5,7.0,6.5,6.0, 5.5};

        /** practical salinity */
        const double SP = 34.15;

        /** ocean depth of measurements, in meters */
        const double depth = 60.25;

        latitude, longitude of measurements
        (off W. Coast of U.S.)
        const double lat = 35.33;
        const double lon = -150.21;

        /** variables for storing net steric balances */
        double netTETC = 0; /** net thermal expansion / contraction */
        double netSLC = 0; /** net sea level change, in millimeters */

        /** report text file */
        ofstream textFile("output-files/thermal_expansion.txt");

        textFile << setprecision(12)
        << "initial volume of ocean: "
        << oceanVol2010 << " (cu. km.)"
        << endl << endl;

         for loop: calculates thermal expansion/contraction
         from temperatures specified @ the temperature array         **********************************************************/
        for (unsigned tPos = 1; tPos < maxTemperatures; tPos++)
                /** select temperatures */
                double Tnow = temperatures[tPos];
                double Tbefore = temperatures[tPos-1];

                /** save temperature changes to text file */
                textFile << setprecision(2)
                << tPos << ")\t"
                << "Temp. before: " << Tbefore << endl
                << "\tTemp. now: " << Tnow << endl
                << "\tTemp. change: "
                << Tnow - Tbefore << " (deg C)"
                << endl;

                 convert depth @ lat to TEOS Z
                double Z = gsw_z_from_p(depth, lat);

                /** calculate TEOS pressure (dbars) */
                double P = gsw_p_from_z(Z, lat);

                /** calculate TEOS absolute salinity (g/kg) */
                double SA = gsw_sa_from_sp(SP,P,lon,lat);

                /** calculate TEOS conservative temperature */
                double CT = gsw_ct_from_t(SA,Tnow,P);

                /** calculate TEOS thermal expansion coefficient */
                double tec = gsw_alpha(SA, CT, P);

                 calculate thermosteric
                 volume using a constant
                 mass-volume value
                double TEvolume = thermalExpansion(oceanVol2010, tec, Tbefore, Tnow);

                /** record the TE volume changes */
                netTETC += oceanVol2010 - TEvolume;

                /** record sea level changes (mm) */
                netSLC = netTETC / cuKmPerMm;

                /** save changes to report file */
                textFile << setprecision(12)
                << "\tthis volume change: " << oceanVol2010 - TEvolume
                << " (cu. km)"
                << endl
                << "\tnet volume change: " << netTETC
                << " (cu. km)"
                << endl
                << "\tnet sea level change: " << netSLC
                << " (mm)"
                << endl << "\t---------------" << endl;
        } /** for loop */

        /** clean up */

        return 0;
}/** end of source code */

Here is what the above program prints out:

initial volume of ocean: 1332370930.2 (cu. km.)

1)  Temp. before: 5.5
     Temp. now: 6.5
     Temp. change: 1 (deg C)
     this volume change: 172385.525115 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 172385.525115 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 476.412360995 (mm)
2)  Temp. before: 6.5
     Temp. now: 7.5
     Temp. change: 1 (deg C)
     this volume change: 186669.887116 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 359055.412231 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 992.301624832 (mm)
3)  Temp. before: 7.5
     Temp. now: 8
     Temp. change: 0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: 96841.4510376 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 455896.863269 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 1259.93699793 (mm)
4)  Temp. before: 8
     Temp. now: 8.5
     Temp. change: 0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: 100306.653495 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 556203.516764 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 1537.1489598 (mm)
5)  Temp. before: 8.5
     Temp. now: 8
     Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: -96841.4510376 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 459362.065726 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 1269.5135867 (mm)
6)  Temp. before: 8
     Temp. now: 7.5
     Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: -93334.9435582 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 366027.122168 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 1011.56895478 (mm)
7)    Temp. before: 7.5
    Temp. now: 7
    Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
    this volume change: -89785.8304353 (cu. km)
    net volume change: 276241.291733 (cu. km)
    net sea level change: 763.432810911 (mm)
8)  Temp. before: 7
     Temp. now: 6.5
     Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: -86192.7625573 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 190048.529176 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 525.226630414 (mm)
9)  Temp. before: 6.5
     Temp. now: 6
     Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
     this volume change: -82554.3415222 (cu. km)
     net volume change: 107494.187653 (cu. km)
     net sea level change: 297.07575331 (mm)
10) Temp. before: 6
      Temp. now: 5.5
      Temp. change: -0.5 (deg C)
      this volume change: -78869.118834 (cu. km)
      net volume change: 28625.0688193 (cu. km)
      net sea level change: 79.1095227442 (mm)

NOTE: Use a g++ compliant compiler, and download the TEOS-10 toolkit.

More on the more difficult part of the process (handling the real WOD data) in a future post.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 5

Fig. 1 Determining Ocean Mass Change
I. The Critical Numbers

The most critical value to determine in thermosteric sea level rise (thermal expansion) calculations is the mass at the time the calculations commence.

That is not as difficult to determine as one might think.

In Fig. 1 the technique I use is illustrated in a manner that further illustrates what I wrote in a previous post in this series:
Fig. 2
The Golden 23 numbers indicate about 197 mm (about 7.8 inches) of sea level rise during the graphed time frame.

That comports well with the NASA estimation that "sea level has risen about eight inches since the beginning of the 20th century" (NASA, emphasis added).
(On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 4). The official global mean sea level rise during the graphed span of time is about 8 inches, which is about 200 millimeters (Fig. 1 shows 197.136 mm).

II. First Numbers First

Fig. 3
The first thing we need to know is the volume of the ocean at a given year, which I glean from “The Volume of Earth's Ocean” (Oceanography, vol. 23, no. 2, 2010, pp. 112–114; PDF version).

In 2010 that paper was published with the new calculated amount of 1,332,370,930.2 km3.

From that value, by calculation we can derive:
1,332,370,930.2 ÷ 3.6822 = 361,841,000 (cu km per km of depth)
361,841,000 ÷ 1000 = 361,841 (cu km per m of depth)
361,841 ÷ 1000 = 361.841 (cu km per mm of depth)
The sea level rise, from 1880 - 2016, shown by the Golden 23 PSMSL tide gauge stations is 197.136 millimeters.

Fig. 4
Looking at my CSV file, the ocean mass in 2010 is 1,332,370,930.2 km3, the ocean mass in 2016 is 1,332,385,221.75 km3, and the ocean mass in 1880 is 1,332,313,889.78 km3.

So, 1,332,385,221.75 - 1,332,313,889.78 is 71,331.97 km3.

That is the mass increase in cubic kilometers (km3).

To double check the calculations, we multiply the sea level rise in millimeters by the cubic kilometers per millimeter of ocean: 197.136 × 361.841 = 71,331.887376 km3.

How close they are is determined by: 71,331.97 − 71,331.887376 = 0.082624 mm) close enough?

If that is close enough, then the ocean mass in 1880 was 1,332,313,889.78 km3.

That is the mass value we must use to properly calculate thermal expansion:
"A common practice in sea level research is to analyze separately the
Fig. 5
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). If we do not use that value, instead using the increasing mass / volume quantity, then the thermal expansion mass value becomes about thirteen times more than all of the ocean volume increase (the variable use totals to a 910, 589 km3 thermal expansion increase, when the maximum mass / volume increase is 71,331.97 km3).

The graph at Fig. 3 shows how really way off the improper use of the formula will make the thermal expansion calculation (see Section V. here for how the TEOS toolkit is used to calculate that issue).

III. The Other Graphs

The graph at Fig. 4 shows a lot of activity in both thermal expansion and thermal contraction, as I discovered about a year and a half ago (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction).
Fig. 6

The net result, though, is thermal contraction.

The graph at Fig. 5 contains both the wrong use of the formulas and the right use of the formulas.

You can clearly see that the use of the increasing ocean mass/volume vs. the use of the initial ocean mass/volume radically distorts the result.

And the graph at Fig. 6 shows the proper ocean mass / volume change increase of 71,331.97 km3 associated with the 197.136 mm sea level rise.

BTW, I do not use the abstract mass / volume values in the calculations any longer.

For the water temperature and salinity history, I use calculations that more accurately compute those values, so the 1968 beginning date for WOD water temperature and salinity measurements, and the satellite beginning date of 1993, are no longer a hindrance (due to lack of data).

IV. Conclusion

Solving the mass / volume quantities of the ocean has made the entire exercise stable now.

So, I want to get back to some of the models that I have not used in a long time, and plug the new TEOS toolkit, ocean mass / volume values, and other factors into projecting some sea level changes in various parts of the world.

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

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Gerrymandering - Geological Deceit? - 6

Oral Argument in Gill v Whitford
I began this series almost nine years ago (Gerrymandering - Geological Deceit?).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on the issue this past Tuesday in the case Gill v. Whitford.

This case will have the impact of Citizens United v. FEC or worse.

If state legislatures are allowed to draw gerrymandered voting districts to favor their political party and ideals, democracy in the U.S. at both the state and federal level will suffer a catastrophe (Gerrymandering - Geological Deceit?, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Why not simply make one or more counties the voting districts, and allow she or he who wins the most counties to become elected?

I say that because counties already hold elections and have the apparatus to do so, in both federal and state elections.

It will save the expense we now have in managing votes in far flung and outlandishly shaped gerrymandered voting districts.

Meanwhile the counties already exist and have the money to conduct elections.

Anyway, the Supreme Court's decision will likely be made before the end of June 2018.

The previous post in this series is here.

Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Hold On To Something Alright

Fig. 1 History of Ocean Depth Assertions
I. Ignorance is Bliss?

The graph at Fig. 1 is a NOAA graph showing the mean (average) ocean depth in meters, as estimated or calculated for over a century.

The latest estimate, measurement, or calculation (3,682.2 m) that I use was done in 2010 (Science Daily).

Why have scientists been unsure of the depth?

According to a NASA scientist:
"... the oceans contain 99 percent of the living space on the planet ... We know more about the oceans than we used to. Yet we still know 'very little about the vast majority of the ocean', he says ... It's really a hard place to work. In many ways, it's easier to put a person into space than it is to send a person down to the bottom of the ocean. For one thing, the pressure exerted by the water above is enormous. It's the equivalent of one person trying to support 50 jumbo jets. It's also dark and cold. Unlike space where you can see forever, once you're down in the ocean you can't see anything because your light can't shine very far. It's a challenging place to study ... even with all the technology that we have today -- satellites, buoys, underwater vehicles and ship tracks -- we have better maps of the surface of Mars and the moon than we do the bottom of the ocean. We know very, very little about most of the ocean. This is especially true for the middle and deeper parts far away from the coasts"
(NASA). NOAA adds:
"The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet's surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all living organisms. Throughout history, the ocean has been a vital source of sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration.

Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes."
(NOAA, emphasis added). Once upon a time, about nine years ago, when I pointed out that we treat the ocean like a black hole where we throw our nuclear, sewage, and other garbage and waste, the internut went a bit wacko on me (New Continent Found - Garbage Gyre II).

I have also attempted to point out that we don't tend to want to understand even the part of the ocean that we can see, or should see (NASA Busts The Ghost).

II. So How Do We Know So Much?

We don't have to see the bottom to see the surface, and that surface can tell us a lot about ourselves and what our civilization is doing to a planet we have yet to discover, it would seem (You Are Here).

There is a vast amount of information available (e.g. World Ocean Database, Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level).

That information is what I mull over, study, and use for the benefit of Dredd Blog readers.

We can know enough to save our civilization at some point, only if enough of our fellow sojourners get it and tell it like it is.

Frankly, that is not the case (Normalization Of The Abnormal, Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

III. Conclusion

There is no glory in all of this arduous work done under a 'pen name' (6 Reasons for Authors to Use a Pen Name).

But there is the satisfaction of discovering and then sharing some discoveries with others (like the scientists who work at it day in and day out).

I am not tired of it yet, because it is something I believe.

Something I can hold on to.

And it makes me feel alright.

Lyrics here, (full concert here).

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Normalization Of The Abnormal

McTell it like it is, Snooper Man
The news media habit of normalizing the abnormal went awry when candidate Trump bloviated on and on about what was considered to be abnormal politics.

Like soon-to-be, it is said, "Senator Judge Roy L. Bean" (out of Alabama).

But I digress.

In their media minds, Candidate Trump could never be elected to the most powerful office that an individual could hold in the United States, so why bother normalizing his abnormality?

It was a waste of time, besides, the media world already had lots of work to do with all the paid expert-bloviators it took to normalize everlasting war without even mentioning it (Secret Afghanistan Underground - 3).

Or, I guess I should say mentioning it about as much as it mentions climate change:
"In 2016, evening newscasts and Sunday shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC, as well as Fox Broadcast Co.'s Fox News Sunday, collectively decreased their total coverage of climate change by 66 percent compared to 2015, even though there were a host of important climate-related stories, including the announcement of 2015 as the hottest year on record, the signing of the Paris climate agreement, and numerous climate-related extreme weather events. There were also two presidential candidates to cover, and they held diametrically opposed positions on the Clean Power Plan, the Paris climate agreement, and even on whether climate change is a real, human-caused phenomenon. Apart from PBS, the networks also failed to devote significant coverage to climate-related policies, but they still found the time to uncritically air climate denial -- the majority of which came from now-President Donald Trump and his team."
(How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2016, emphasis added). They reduced it because, you know, both are life and death matters ("One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.").

If it bleeds it leads, unless it can't be explained by those expert-bloviators.

Like mass-murders.

Let's review one of many exceptionally famous cases ("we're number one" at mass murderers) for some key points:
"... [Whitman] killed a receptionist with the butt of his rifle. Two families of tourists came up the stairwell; he shot at them at point-blank range. Then he began to fire indiscriminately from the deck at people below. The first woman he shot was pregnant. As her boyfriend knelt to help her, Whitman shot him as well. He shot pedestrians in the street and an ambulance driver who came to rescue them.

The evening before, Whitman had sat at his typewriter and composed a suicide note:
I don’t really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can’t recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts.
By the time the police shot him dead, Whitman had killed 13 people and wounded 32 more. The story of his rampage dominated national headlines the next day. And when police went to investigate his home for clues, the story became even stranger: in the early hours of the morning on the day of the shooting, he had murdered his mother and stabbed his wife to death in her sleep.
It was after much thought that I decided to kill my wife, Kathy, tonight … I love her dearly, and she has been as fine a wife to me as any man could ever hope to have. I cannot rationa[l]ly pinpoint any specific reason for doing this …
Along with the shock of the murders lay another, more hidden, surprise: the juxtaposition of his aberrant actions with his unremarkable personal life. Whitman was an Eagle Scout and a former marine, studied architectural engineering at the University of Texas, and briefly worked as a bank teller and volunteered as a scoutmaster for Austin’s Boy Scout Troop 5. As a child, he’d scored 138 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, placing in the 99th percentile. So after his shooting spree from the University of Texas Tower, everyone wanted answers.

For that matter, so did Whitman. He requested in his suicide note that an autopsy be performed to determine if something had changed in his brain — because he suspected it had.
I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt [overcome by] overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail.
Whitman’s body was taken to the morgue, his skull was put under the bone saw, and the medical examiner lifted the brain from its vault. He discovered that Whitman’s brain harbored a tumor the diameter of a nickel. This tumor, called a glioblastoma, had blossomed from beneath a structure called the thalamus, impinged on the hypothalamus, and compressed a third region called the amygdala."
(Atlantic Monthly, emphasis added). The "well educated Eagle Scout Marine" dood became a domestic enemy, and turned on his loved ones.

The Blind Willie McTell News goes the most bananas when they have no paid expert-bloviators to explain what happened in "Las Vegas" (Choose Your Trances Carefully - 6).

Whatever happens in "the Las Vegas trance" stays in "Las Vegas trance" it would seem.

They do the 24/7 trance and begin showing the same videos over and over 24/7 ... until ... well ... they don't anymore.

Then it never happened it would seem.

They may soon devolve into the Normalize The Abnormal trance to try to convince you, and themselves, that this is the new normal.

They may also resort to pabulum indicating that it is the fire sale price we pay for MOMCOM freedom (MOMCOM - A Mean Welfare Queen).

Historically, they have a record of accomplishing this (Blind Willie McTell News, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

But in the end, that accomplishment can only be brought about by their incessant appeal to the base (the exceptional despotic minority):
"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority. Unlike Spengler in his The Decline of the West, Toynbee did not regard the death of a civilization as inevitable, for it may or may not continue to respond to successive challenges. Unlike Karl Marx, he saw history as shaped by spiritual, not economic forces."
(Stockholm Syndrome: The Declaration of Intellectual Dependence, quoting Encyclopedia Britannica). "Go with the flow baby" is the new old Highway 61 (War is the Highway 61 of the 1%).

After all, the Oscar ... oops ... I mean the Pulitzer is in play.