|Fig. 1 Greenland Subsurface Temperatures|
The contrast from area to area is shown by the contrast in temperature volatility between Fig. 3 and Fig. 1.
The map at Fig. 2 shows the WOD Zones where the data used to generate the two graphs originated.
In Fig. 1 it appears as though the layers are moving up and down, mixing or crossing paths, as well as being impacted by external influences.
Some of it is caused by the dynamic of both colder and warmer waters that are flowing in from elsewhere.
That "elsewhere" is well known surface and subsurface currents (The Question Is: How Much Acceleration Is Involved In SLR? - 4).
|Fig. 2 WOD Zones - Greenland & Australia|
At any rate, the less volatile water temperatures at various depths around Australia may have misled the scientist who wrote the scientific paper I criticized recently (The Warming Science Commentariat - 8).
On another subject, as you can see, the module that processes a list of zones is a handy tool.
|Fig. 3 Australia Subsurface Temperatures|
IMO that is a better way to deal scientifically with subsurface temperatures and other features, since the same module will do that for the many other ocean-content measurements in the World Ocean Database (WOD Depth Dependent Variables).
Surely, those scientists will not repeat the folly and urge is to believe that mathematical formulas are a way of detecting a host of temperatures and chemicals found at various depths?
If a researcher has to go to those depths with submersibles anyway, why not gather all the data while there, rather than speculating with mathematical guesswork?
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.