|Fig. 1 Depths & Temperatures|
Today's PSMSL stations show robust sea level rise off the U.S. East Coast.
I am writing specifically about Key West, Miami Beach, and Charleston, SC.
Yet, the World Ocean Database data from WOD zones 7207 and 7307 do not show evidence that thermal expansion is "a MAJOR cause of sea level rise" in the area.
|Fig. 2 Depths & Temperatures|
|Fig. 3 Charleston|
|Fig. 4 Key West|
|Fig. 5 Miami Beach|
It would figure the thermal variations in a WOD zone from the surface down into the depths.
The OS upgrade program trashed my hard drive and my backup drive, so that was the end of that code epoch.
We are in a new cod epoch now, because I keep my backups in "an offshore account."
Anyway, as I said, I rewrote the WOD zone analysis software, which makes csv files from millions of WOD data values.
It then populates an SQL table from which I can then "go figure" out the thermal ups and downs for Dredd Blog readers..
The screen shots at Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 are printouts of the report which that module (which is still in beta mode) generates.
What it does is average out the temperature changes over the years at seven depth layers, then it averages out all of those layers into one figure.
When you compare that figure to the PSMSL graphs of sea level rise (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5), you can determine without a calculator that the TEM (thermal expansion myth) should not have been perpetuated and/or promulgated by The Warming Commentariat (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
|Fig. 6 "Go Figure" Zone 7307|
These graphs (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) are each made from four WOD files as follows: 1) log onto the WOD zone selection menu (WOD menu), 2) select a zone, 3) download the "CTD0nnnn", "CTDSnnnn", "PFL0nnnn", and "PFLSnnn" data files, 3) write software modules to extract the data, separate it into years, levels, and measurement types (temperature, salinity, and 30 or so other types of data), 4) generate a mean average for each year, each depth level, and each data type, 5) write the results to CSV files and an SQL database, 6) blog about it, 7) take heat from The Donald Gang for being scientific.
(I kid my editor about the data being "a slice of PI").
|Fig. 7 "Go Figure" Zone 7207|
Measurements which are placed in them by scientists (oceanographers, etc.) from around the world.
They are then reviewed by WOD technicians of various sorts.
Finally they are made available for download.
The adventurous folk who use the data, like me, enjoy having a hands-on experience with the science.
In closing, I should mention that I may have one design bug in the module that generates the mean averages (Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
Notice that there was no data (in the WOD files) for depths and temperatures below 3,000 meters (9,842.52 ft).
The software will calculate any measurements from any depth of any ocean, but when there is no data provided at the deepest level, what should I do?
While I know that the ocean water below that depth exists, and that it is probably colder than the water above it, should I use seven or six as the divisor?
When those deepest depths have not been reached by the expedition scientists, there is no measurement data, so should I extrapolate?
Using 7 instead of 6 assumes it is the same temperature as the water above it (even though it is more likely to be colder), but using 6 means. in effect. that it does not exist (unless there is no water below 3000 m).
If any readers see any problems, errors, and the like, please let me know and I will make corrections as needed.
The previous post in this series is here.