 |
| Fig. 1 |
I only do this to processed data, i.e. not directly on the 400 some million rows of data in the raw.
That is, I check on a per zone basis after all the data has been merged into a set of rows ranging from 1800 to the latest, and even up to the year 2100 when future projections are being done.
There is about a 2% error factor (2 rows out of 100), which also means there is excellent data about 98% of the time.
 |
| Fig. 2 |
That means they can be so wrong as to mess things up.
For example, some of the errors I noted had temperatures such as "-414.391" degrees C for ocean water measurement (the coldest valid ocean water temperature is about -2.5 degrees C).
The correction modules will detect that, then write a report, with suggested corrections based on the other data in that set.
 |
| Fig. 3 |
The conclusion I drew is that they all hold up even with potential errors in 2% of the data.
So, absent requests to redo any graphs, etc., I will leave them as is, however, if any readers want reruns of any of them, just ask in a comment or an email and I will redo them for you.
Today's data and that in the future will all have been scrubbed by the clean up routines.
 |
| Fig. 4 |
 |
| Fig. 5 |
So, I downloaded the WOD Zone data around that island nation (Zones 3316, 3317, 3416, 3417, 5317, 5417) and generated Fig. 1 with that ocean specific data.
I already had the PSMSL data for that area, so I ran it to generate Fig. 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5.
Incidentally, I mentioned, in a post or two back, that I had also acquired satellite data for global mean average sea level change.
I have that data in modules so that I can inject it into an analysis process along with the other PSMSL and WOD data.
If you will notice Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 closely, the satellite data shows up as a tiny red line blip on the scene.
Among other things, that is because it is a relatively new source of data compared to the PSMSL data which goes back to the late 1700's in some cases (SLC satellite data began in 1993).
When I fuse that GMSL SAT data to PSMSL RLR values (Fig. 4), 7000 mm is the base line, and when I use only millimeter change values (Fig. 5) zero is the base line.
One of the main benefits of adding the satellite global mean average to the graphs is to show how substantial the tide gauge records are (another benefit is how doing global mean averages glosses over a lot).
Getting back to the graphs ...
Once again, the graphs show that the main players of SLC, in terms of geography, are Antarctica, Greenland, and various land glacier conglomerations.
And once again, in terms of geophysics, the main players are displacement from ice sheet melt and disintegration, ghost-water from gravitational weakening of ice sheets and glacial masses, and the minor players thermal expansion and uplifting bring up the rear.
Here are the WOD temperature details from these zones:
WOD Zone: 3316 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 95 upward & 80 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 7 levels: 3.91198
- 0-200m = 3.6019
- 200-400m = 1.0618
- 400-600m = 0.55522
- 600-800m = 0.01773
- 800-1000m = 0.01747
- 1000-3000m = -1.35404
- >3000m = 0.0119
Years involved: 1983 -> 2016 (33 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (3.91198 ÷ 33): 0.118545
WOD Zone: 3317 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 92 upward & 95 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 7 levels: 3.16926
- 0-200m = 3.8505
- 200-400m = 0.6847
- 400-600m = 0.20999
- 600-800m = -0.21497
- 800-1000m = -0.22862
- 1000-3000m = -0.45213
- >3000m = -0.68021
Years involved: 1983 -> 2016 (33 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (3.16926 ÷ 33): 0.0960382
WOD Zone: 3416 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 88 upward & 90 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 7 levels: 7.89241
- 0-200m = 2.114
- 200-400m = 0.81994
- 400-600m = 0.9363
- 600-800m = -0.14133
- 800-1000m = 0.20886
- 1000-3000m = 3.97173
- >3000m = -0.01709
Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (7.89241 ÷ 38): 0.207695
WOD Zone: 3417 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 101 upward & 90 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 6 levels: 6.27893
- 0-200m = 2.59158
- 200-400m = 0.62543
- 400-600m = 0.45108
- 600-800m = 1.4046
- 800-1000m = 0.8354
- 1000-3000m = 0.37084
Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (6.27893 ÷ 38): 0.165235
WOD Zone: 5317 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 88 upward & 97 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 7 levels: -0.67031
- 0-200m = 1.521
- 200-400m = -0.7383
- 400-600m = -1.16474
- 600-800m = -0.69747
- 800-1000m = -0.14028
- 1000-3000m = 0.23845
- >3000m = 0.31103
Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (-0.67031 ÷ 47): -0.0142619
WOD Zone: 5417 (temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning temperature changes, there
were 86 upward & 85 downward changes.
Net changes per level were:
Net change for 7 levels: 5.36361
- 0-200m = 2.76345
- 200-400m = 0.95535
- 400-600m = 0.71243
- 600-800m = 0.09984
- 800-1000m = -0.06095
- 1000-3000m = 0.92256
- >3000m = -0.02907
Years involved: 1978 -> 2016 (38 yrs)
Average change per year:
- (5.36361 ÷ 38): 0.141148
Combined averages for 6 total WOD Zones
(temperatures are in deg. C)
Concerning change, the mean average
was 91 upward & 89 downward changes.
Average changes per depth level were:
Average change, all 7 levels: 4.32431
- 0-200m = 2.7404
- 200-400m = 0.568153
- 400-600m = 0.28338
- 600-800m = 0.0780667
- 800-1000m = 0.105313
- 1000-3000m = 0.616235
- >3000m = -0.06724
Years involved: 1969 -> 2016 (47 yrs)
Average annual combined change:
- (4.32431 ÷ 47): 0.0920067 C per year
Sea levels may be rising twice as fast as we thought
ReplyDeletehttps://amp.businessinsider.com/sea-levels-rising-faster-2016-11
In other words, the dramatic sea level increases already measured may not account for the real surge going on across the world. [more]
Sooner or later they must pay attention. Unfortunately, it's always when it's far too late.
Tom
Tom,
DeleteA quote from that piece: "a new study suggests that global sea level rise is happening at roughly twice the rate that previously models envisioned"
That "twice the rate" observation would be a validation of the Hansen, Rignot, et al. "doubling" type of acceleration which the IPCC style of model is "unaware" of (The Evolution of Models - 12).
The video in the link I just provided has some detail about the problems with those linear increase (as opposed to accelerated or doubling increase) types of models.
Oops I left out the link I mentioned.
Deletehere it is: The Evolution of Models - 12
That article Tom linked to is utterly stupid in several ways.
ReplyDeleteTide gauges are used to measure sea level rise or fall where that tide gauge is located, not somewhere else. If they new shit from shinola they would know that fingerprinting is the way to tell what the sea level change is in other areas.
The East Coast of the U.S. has a plethora of tide gauge stations, and it is one area where sea level rise is higher than other areas. The fish out in the deep sea where the sea level rise may be higher don't need to know.
Millions of people live near tide gauge stations. They don't build them in the deep sea. Nobody lives there. Sea level rise is a danger to civilization, not to deep ocean critters.
What dorks the authors of that article are.
I dealt with Business Insider in today's post (The Warming Science Commentariat - 10).
DeleteYep, the truth is somewhere out there, but it's in a sewer of misperception, "bad science," juggled stats, and propaganda to keep business as usual flowing right along.
ReplyDeleteWe'll know the truth when it's lapping at our doors.
Tom