The Evolution of Models - 5

Fig. 1 (click to enlarge)

The notion of building a brain for a machine mystifies people who have never programmed computers, i.e., taught them to think.

That is, it mystifies people who have never developed software, which is the computer's cognitive dynamic that is a lot like the cognitive dynamic of human thinking at some level (garbage in, garbage out).

Highly opinionated people will imagine the wildest of scenarios when confronted with a machine with a software brain that can defeat them at chess.

Or defeat them in a question answer session about world geography, astronomy, or the number of atoms in various elements.

This is especially so when confronted with computers having software brains that are models which calculate future events better than they can.

I want to try to demystify this context by showing some of the world's most simple software brains for computers that can predict sea level rise.

The first one is the brain of a highly opinionated computer, which asks no questions because it already knows it all, so it just spills the beans:

---

#include <iostream>
int main()
{
 cout << "Hello world! SLR will reach 0 ft. in 120 years!"<< endl;
 return 0;
}

---

That is the Senator Inhofe model.

The next example is the brain of a data driven computer, which asks a "genius" for data before it spills the beans:

---

#include <iostream>
#include <string>
int main()
{
cout << "Hello genius! How many feet of SLR will take place in 120 years?"<< endl;
string slr;
cin >> slr;
cout << "Hello again world! The genius says that ["<< slr << "] ft. of SLR will take place in 120 years!"<< endl;

return 0;
}

---

The point is that serious software is a lot like serious people: it takes a lot of work to produce them, and what they say is more reliable and less frivolous than merely opinionated people.


That there are zones where ice sheet or ice cap melt takes place at a different rates

Fig. 2 (click to enlarge)

than at other zones should be as certain as the fact we live on a globe and not on a flat earth.

The zone approach to sea level rise (SLR) software in Fig. 1 as four bell curve type shapes with X₁, X₂, X₃, and X₄ as points in each zone.

To reflect reality, "X" represents when CO² in inordinate quantities is ejected into the atmosphere.

The upward slope is the resulting temperature rise until "Y" is reached, which is the point a which ice melt takes place (X₁ = coastal, X₂ = inland 1, X₃ = inland 2, and X₄ = no melt.

That there would be different begin points for each zone ought not to be too much for anyone to comprehend.

Fig. 3 (click to enlarge)

The zone map of Greenland at Fig. 2 and Antarctica at Fig 3 show the four zones at each location.

It would seem to be intuitive that low lying areas at the coasts near warming oceans would be the first place where melt would take place.

As the ice weakens, one would expect the ice to break up into various ice chunks and slide off the land mass into the sea.

Either melt water flowing into the sea, or ice calving into ice bergs causes an SLR (the ice does not have to melt to cause SLR when it slides off the coast and into the sea).

The concept in Fig. 1 shows a melt sequence, beginning with the first zone most likely to melt, then proceeding to the least likely to begin to melt.

The proof of the validity of this concept is shown by comparing the oft used WAIS and EAIS (West and East Antarctica) nomenclature with the four zones comprised of natural contours, distance from, and elevations above the warming seas.

The WAIS and EAIS nomenclature is based on lines drawn on a paper map rather than being based on natural configurations of obvious geographical features.

The melt and destabilization of the coastal Totten Glacier @ EAIS, together with the melt of glaciers along the WAIS coast illustrates the point that they are both in the same Dredd Blog SLR software "coastal zone."

Those familiar with historical Antarctica rhetoric will remember that the EAIS is a separate, "stable" place compared to WAIS, and it will not melt for ages (The Case For A Stable EAIS).

Those familiar with real time Antarctica and with Dredd Blog SLR software will remember that both WAIS and EAIS are in the Dredd Blog SLR coastal zone, and that both are melting now (i.e. losing volume).


That the zones are geographically distinct does not mean that there will be no overlapping melt, it just means that by and large the melt will be like dominoes falling as the ocean and air warm.

The Dredd Blog SLR model has database values that trigger the start of the simulation of the melt of the zones, or turn them off, by allowing the user to specify what year the melt in each zone begins.

For example, "Greenland inland 1" can be set to a different year than "Antarctica inland 1", as can the other zones.


It should be clear that the progression through X_1,2,3,4, Y_1,2,3,4, and Z_1,2,3,4, is also a progression of difficulty, in terms of determining when each Zone_1,2,3,4 activity will take place.

I have not concerned myself with that too much, because the coastal zones of Greenland and Antarctica themselves can generate SLR above the 3 ft. catastrophe level.

Focusing on stopping the catastrophe by leaving fossil fuel in the ground and switching to non-suicidal fuels is the target logic and sanity.


The following is an SQL related file that the mySQL client processes to create a simple SQL table from which the software loads values:

---

CREATE DATABASE IF NOT EXISTS slr;
USE slr;
CREATE TABLE slr_projection (
id INT NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT,
keystr VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
datastr VARCHAR(32) NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_RemainingSLR[coast] = ", "10.0265;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_RemainingSLR[inland_1] = ", "10.053;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_RemainingSLR[inland_2] = ", "48.0795;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_RemainingSLR[noMelt] = ", "172.371;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_max_SLR = ", "240.53;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_RemainingSLR[coast] = ", "4.298;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_RemainingSLR[inland_1] = ", "2.149;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_RemainingSLR[inland_2] = ", "6.447;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_RemainingSLR[noMelt] = ", "8.596;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_max_SLR = ", "21.49;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_RemainingSLR[coast] = ", "0.27;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_RemainingSLR[inland_1] = ", "0.27;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_RemainingSLR[inland_2] = ", "0.47;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_RemainingSLR[noMelt] = ", "0.47;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_max_SLR = ", "1.48;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_SLRsoFar = ", "0.0;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_SLRsoFar = ", "0.0;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_SLRsoFar = ", "0.0;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "beginYear = ", "2015;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "endYear = ", "2100;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_MeltBeginYr[coast] = ", "2015;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_MeltBeginYr[inland_1] = ", "2040;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_MeltBeginYr[inland_2] = ", "2050;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "NonPolar_MeltBeginYr[noMelt] = ", "2060;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_MeltBeginYr[coast] = ", "2015;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_MeltBeginYr[inland_1] = ", "2040;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_MeltBeginYr[inland_2] = ", "2060;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Greenland_MeltBeginYr[noMelt] = ", "2080;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_MeltBeginYr[coast] = ", "2015;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_MeltBeginYr[inland_1] = ", "2050;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_MeltBeginYr[inland_2] = ", "2090;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "Antarctica_MeltBeginYr[noMelt] = ", "2180;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "MetersPerDegreeC = ", "2.3;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "DegreesCby2100 = ", "4.25;");
insert into slr_projection VALUES (0, "CO2ppmIncreaseYr = ", "0.00818801;");

---

I include this data for the simple purpose of showing that changing the data can seriously change the outcome of what the software generates.

For example, changing the year the melt begins in each zone, the number of feet of potential SLR in each zone, the degrees Celsius the globe will be warmed to by the year 2100, and the like, can significantly change the outcome.

That is why I choose to use IPCC projections from years ago that turned out to be correct projections upon review.

And, it is why I try to improve upon their SLR projections that have not been accurate (The IPCC Record on Global Warming Temperature Projections, The Evolution of Models - 4).


I use the curve, the footprint, and/or the pattern shown by the IPCC temperature and CO² ppm projections, which have been shown to be reasonably accurate.

I apply that to the SLR potential in each zone of each location in a manner that follows the upward slope of the temperature and the CO² ppm, fused into one trend slope.

Since that slope is upward, and the recent measurements have shown a significant upward slope, we know not only that there is acceleration in SLR going on, but we know that the rate of acceleration is going to be catastrophic to ports around the globe (Will This Float Your Boat - 8).


It is much easier to focus on SLR, leaving out the rest, instead of trying to focus a software program which tries to project all aspects of the damaged global climate system.

I mean that specifically in terms of alerting those who want to hear that SLR is a real and present danger.

I am most definitely an unapologetic alarmist who sounds an alarm when it is time not to err on the side of disaster:

A blogger, commenting on the prudence of having insurance, wrote: "[as] far as frequency you could figure that 0.317% of households ... 0.276% of housing units had a fire in the year."

Nevertheless, fire insurance is not only required for mortgages, it is also a custom of our culture to have fire insurance, and in fact even with those very low odds (less than 1%) that our own fire insurance protection will be used in the context of catastrophic circumstances, as a society we still practice "better safe than sorry" insurance ideology.

(New Climate Catastrophe Policy: Triage - 12). Not sounding the alarm is toying with the lives of billions of people.

If we must err, it is orders of magnitude better to err on the safe side.

The previous post in this series is here.