Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 9

Fig. 1 El Nino Formation Area

Are we there yet?

Have you formed an opinion about the hypothesis that "thermal expansion caused MOST sea level rise in the past century"?

These World Ocean Database (WOD) files have further convinced me that the thermal expansion hypothesis is clearly falsified.

Today's graphs and calculations concern three zones off the west coast of South America where another mystery ("El Nino") tends to form.

Fig. 2 Average Changes in Temperature

Fig. 3

Once again, the data are surprising in the sense that the to-be-expected thermal expansion condition effects do not readily appear in any way one could call robust.

For example, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 concern the WOD Zone that is, of the three we consider today, closest  to the coast.

It is zone 7009 which has the Equator as its southern boundary.

Yet, as Fig. 2 indicates, the data show a slight decrease in temperature over a 39 yr. span of time.

Remember that my argument is about what caused the MOST sea level rise over the past century, which I argue was certainly not thermal expansion.

The graph at Fig. 1 shows that this WOD Zone 7009 shows no indication of a robust warming in the 6 depth levels.

The deepest level (>3000m), which generally would be colder, had no data to include during this time frame.

The zone just west of 7009 is WOD Zone 7010 (Fig. 3, Fig. 4).

Those two graphics show a net increase of 2.4 deg. C over 33 years, but interestingly, from the surface level on down to 200m the data averages show a slight net cooling (in terms of degrees of ups and downs).

Fig. 4

This "thermal expansion caused most sea level rise" does not seem to have support in the vast amount of evidence available.

The next WOD Zone for today's post, zone 7011, is next to and just west of zone 7010.

Again, all of these three zones have the Equator as their southern boundary, with 10 deg. N. Latitude as their northern boundary.

We are in warm water country here folks (El Nino land), where the thermal expansion hypothesis should get solid backing. 

Yet, it is strikingly like the other areas we have recently considered (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 7, Humble Oil-Qaeda, Hard Times² In New York Town, Zone In On Sea Level Change - 3).

So, let's review the thinking, or lack thereof, that led The Warming Commentariat astray into thermal expansion land:

With recently improved instrumental accuracy, the change in the heat content

Fig. 5

of the oceans and the corresponding contribution to the change of the sea level can be determined from in situ measurements of temperature variation with depth. Nevertheless, it would be favourable if the same changes could be evaluated from just the sea surface temperatures because the past record could then be reconstructed and future scenarios explored. Using a single column model we show that the average change in the heat content of the oceans and the corresponding contribution to a global change in the sea level can be evaluated from the past sea surface temperatures.

(Ocean Science, 6, 179–184, 2010, emphasis added). That is just plain wrong, and it is also a lazy approach to scientific observation IMO (they argue that they can tell what the temperature 10,000 feet below is by what the temperature is at the surface; e.g. WOD Zone 7715 shows a surface temperature below 0 deg. C, while the subsurface temperatures are above 0 deg. C; other zones show the opposite: surface temperatures above 0 deg. C with some subsurface temperatures below 0 deg. C).

However, the data show that the temperature at all levels can and does change in a chaotic way, not in a mathematical, uniform, and synchronized way.

Thankfully, subsequent consideration of more than just the surface (we are not talking about skiing on a lake folks) is more robust:

"On the basis of the GRACE data, we conclude that most of the change in

Fig. 6

ocean mass is caused by the melting of polar ice sheets and mountain glaciers." Nature, GeoScience
...
"Comparing the two over the seven year period this study looked at, the authors found that meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets contributed more to sea level rise than thermal expansion" - Carbon Brief

Remember the story of the bank robber, who when asked why she robbed banks, replied : "That is where the money is."

Like her, when we consider net thermal expansion or contraction of the ocean, we must go where most of the water is and measure it there (clue: most of it is below the surface).

Doing that at the Equator (where the warmest water would be expected, along with resulting highest thermal expansion caused sea level rise) to test the "thermal expansion is the cause of MOST sea level rise" hypotheses, we find the hypothesis wanting (see Fig. 7 & Fig. 8 below).

Well, that is it for today.

Let me know if you notice any mistakes.

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

---

Fig. 7 Equatorial Sea Level

Fig. 8 In Warm El Nino Area Waters

---

How Reliable Is The World Ocean Database?

Fig. 1 Golomb Ruler

After working with the data for awhile, I like it.

I downloaded updates which I will be posting in a day or so (WOD Updates).

They are the May, 2016 updates.

They threw me a curve by mixing casts from different zones in 4 large files (CTDS, CTDO, PFLS, and PFLO) of 205.7 MB + 15.6 MB +703.5 MB +83.1 MB = 1.008 GB, covering 436 of 648 different WOD zones (note that many of the WOD zones cover only land, no ocean - see WOD Map).

I had to write a C++ module to go through those files, byte by byte, to identify, then separate the casts in those 4 files, and then place them in files with other casts from the same zone (e.g. all 1212 zone casts in one file named "1212").

Fig. 2

This is important, because if they are all mixed up one can't really get a handle on what is going on (Fig. 4).

That meant that I also had to rewrite the WOD zones database engine, because the only way in general you can tell what WOD zone a cast came from is the name of the file (e.g. CTD01212, and all casts in it, are from zone 1212).

Absent that, when they are all mixed up, the latitude and longitude furnish the only clues as to where the measurements came from.

Fig. 3

Finding those particular latitude and longitude values within "the PI stream" is at first daunting.

Now that I am accustomed to it, it does not take too long.

Nevertheless, I have been busy, as you can see by Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.

Fig. 4 (from 1.008 GB of data)

Those are screen captures of the directory the resulting files were stored in after the module extracted and collated the mixed casts (the 4 files at the end of Fig. 3 are the WOD update files; the other 436 files came out of those 4).

Those 436 files are now named according to the WOD zone the data came from (the ocean area where the water was tested - see WOD Map).

Anyway, that said, let's admit that WOD is a popular, quality place for the scientists who study the ocean and the influence the ocean has on weather and climate:

"Also, forecasters at NOAA’s Ocean Prediction Center, part of NOAA’s National Weather Service, use the information from the database for quality control of real-time oceanographic information it distributes."

(News Release). That is why I use it along with the PSMSL database.

Let's hope that the others using the updates noticed the mix (compare Fig. 4 to single-zone graphs here and here).

Cheers.

Wild Fires & Hurricanes With No Name

"The system had all
the ingredients
of a tropical storm
or a hurricane,
except the winds
and a name."

Scientific American



Southern California Wildfire
Prompts
Evacuations

---

---

---

The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 7

Fig. 1 Top Ten Ports

When I originally contemplated using World Ocean Database (WOD) records, I wanted to research the oceans down under, as well as at the surface in the area of of the world's top sea ports (World Ocean Database Project - 2).

One reason for researching sea port environments is that our particular civilization, like ancient Phoenicia and Carthage, is based on international sea trade (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 3).

Fig. 2 WOD Zone 1010

The sea level change around major sea ports was also considered (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports - 6).

Which meant of course that the causes of sea level rise would have to be included in the research.

Fig. 3 Wod Zone 1205

Fig. 4 WOD Zone 1211

Older beginnings of that exercise were conducted before I had learned to use the WOD database.

Since I now have that WOD data available for increasing my understanding of sub-surface ocean realities, I now use it in the research involved with discovering what really causes the most and the least sea level change.

So, today I want to show Dredd Blog readers what the WOD database tells us is going on down under the ocean surface in some areas around major sea ports of current civilization.

Fig. 5 WOD Zone 1212

Especially in areas where the top ten sea ports are located.

The graphic at Fig. 1 lists the top ten container sea ports.

The ranking of ports changes from time to time, but the area where most of the ports on that list are located tends to host the busiest ports (China, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.).

Surprisingly, the data from WOD zones in that area are not as robust as one would imagine.

That is, since civilization as we know it would fade away if the sea ports faded away due to sea level change, one might expect those areas to be more heavily studied than other areas (Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization - 5).

Fig. 6

As I wrote in an earlier post, I have added a software module to the toolbox that processes WOD data.

It goes through the data concerning temperature changes, in any WOD zone, and calculates results of up and down changes there.

Fig. 7

While doing so it calculates averages at depth levels that have taken place over a span of years, then finally does an annual net average temperature change (x degrees increase, or x degrees decrease).

I did some screen captures of the results which that module calculated and printed (Fig. 7 - Fig. 11).

The way to use them is to compare the WOD graph of subsurface temperatures over the years with the temperature-change analysis.

That is, compare Fig. 2 with Fig. 7 (WOD Zone 1010), Fig. 3 with Fig. 8 (zone 1205), Fig. 4 with Fig. 9 zone 1211), Fig. 5 with Fig. 10 (zone 1212). and Fig. 6 with Fig. 11 (zone 1312).

Fig. 8

The take home from these observations done by scientists over the years, is that the ocean does not warm like a bathtub.

When the cold waters from ice sheet melt and calving are released into the oceans around Greenland or Antarctica, it can flow far away in currents under the surface (Humble Oil-Qaeda).

Even the icebergs on the surface can float far away (ibid).

Thus, as the graphs show, the thermal expansion of the oceans is more complicated than water in a bathtub (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water).

I have included some sea level rise graphs from the PSMSL tide gauge station database at Fig. 12, thru Fig. 15.

These graphs show that sea level rise is taking place even though no major ocean water net-warming is taking place in the zones in the China area.

Fig. 9

The port involved where warming is taking place is Jebel Ali, number nine of the top ten (Fig. 1).

It presents a different story, being there in zone 1205,  which is an area off the coast of Dubai, UAE.

It is in the Persian Gulf.

It is naturally warming more there (Fig. 8) because it is enclosed on three sides by land, and only has the narrow Straits of Hormuz as a way to interact with the Gulf of Oman and the larger Arabian Sea.

Nevertheless, I included it because it is in the top ten seaports, not because it is like the others in terms of being located on open waters of the ocean.

I think by now regular readers, as I am, are seeing that the oceans are going through less than expected warming changes as cold water and icebergs are entering them in more and more massive quantities.

Fig. 10

Some errors in scientific papers did not take into consideration global subsurface changes as a result of this cold water infusion and other factors:

With recently improved instrumental accuracy, the change in the heat content of the oceans and the corresponding contribution to the change of the sea level can be determined from in situ measurements of temperature variation with depth. Nevertheless, it would be favourable if the same changes could be evaluated from just the sea surface temperatures [WRONG! stop being a lazy scientist !] because the past record could then be reconstructed and future scenarios explored. Using a single column model we show that the average change in the heat content of the oceans and the corresponding contribution to a global change in the sea level can be evaluated from the past sea surface temperatures.

(Ocean Science, 6, 179–184, 2010, emphasis added). There has been some recovery from that obvious error.

I mean the error in thinking that we can tell what is going on deep down by measuring only the surface temperature:

"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." Nature, GeoScience
...
"Comparing the two over the seven year period this study looked at, the authors found that meltwater from glaciers and ice sheets contributed more to sea level rise than thermal expansion" - Carbon Brief

That is, we must not only lose the myth of thermal expansion as the source of "MOST"

Fig. 11

 sea level rise in the past century," but we must also lose the notion that it is the source now (or ever was for that matter).

Based on surface measurements alone, one might erroneously conclude that, as has been mistakenly done by some.

But it is an error prone misadventure to ignore the observations in millions of measurements at many depths which are available in the WOD.

Observations made by valid scientific expeditions over years of time are superior to mathematical modeling that takes only a tiny part of the picture into consideration.

That is the point I am making.

Sea levels are changing because of vast quantities of melt waters and ice entering the ocean from land masses.

[Don't forget ghost-water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).]

In conclusion, I included (below) some sea level rise graphs from the PSMSL Database.

They show sea level rise taking place in the areas where most of the sea ports are located and that were written about in today's post.

The sea level is rising regardless of the thermal underpinnings of the ocean depths.

---

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

---

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