Thursday, February 9, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 12

Fig. 1
I. Background

In the midst of the ongoing series "The Layered Approach To Big Water"  I noticed that the PSMSL folks had updated their database on "06 Feb 2017".

Fig. 2
So I downloaded the latest PSMSL datasets (monthly & annual).

Fig. 3a
Then I updated my SQL database of tide gauge station datasets from around the world, looked at the data, and finally generated some graphs.

At the same time, recalling that I had been preparing the Layer Four and Layer Thirteen graphs for the next post in the layers series, I did some comparisons.

Fig. 3b
While doing comparisons, several things caught my eye.

Those things were interesting enough to cause me to think that I should share them with readers.

Fig. 4a
So, today let's review and enhance the thermal expansion hypothesis.

Fig. 4b

II. New PSMSL Data

But first, notice the graphs at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, which were generated with the latest PSMSL datasets I just downloaded.

Fig. 5a
They show an up-tick in sea levels for 2016, which is in sync with the up-tick in temperatures and sea ice loss at both poles during 2016.

Fig. 5b
The graph @ Fig. 1 shows open ocean sea level calculations (red line) as well as the historical measurements at tide gauge stations on the coastlines of the "Golden 23" WOD Zones.

Fig. 6a
The open ocean calculations are generated using Mitrovica et al. observations concerning the highest sea level locations in the open ocean areas, which do not impact coastlines or tide gauges directly.
Fig. 6b

Those values are calculated and graphed to remind us where the sea level measurements along the coastlines come from (tide gauge stations,  constructed and used for centuries, located not where the highest sea levels take place, but where civilization takes place).

Fig. 7a
The graph at Fig. 2 is the sea level change graph generated by using all PSMSL tide gauge station records, including those with severe sea level fall values (see e.g. Proof of Concept - 3, 5).

Fig. 7b
Those values account for the differences in the two graphs at Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.

Fig. 8a
III. The Graph Pairs

Next, so that you can more easily compare the underwater ocean temperatures with the sea level changes at the surface, I have grouped the various latitude layers in "Fig. a", "Fig. b" groups.

Fig. 8b
For example, Layer Five WOD, and its PSMSL sea level changes graph are paired as Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b.

For another example, the Layer Six WOD graph and its SLC graph are paired as Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b.

This pattern goes on down to Layer Twelve at Fig. 10a and Fig. 10b.

Fig. 9a
The "Fig a" types end up on the left side of the page, and the "Fig. b" types end up on the right side of the page.

Fig. 9b
This configuration puts all of the WOD ocean temperature graphs as "Fig. a" types, and all of the PSMSL sea level graphs as "Fig. b" types, which I hope makes them easier to compare and contemplate.

Finally, getting down to brass tacks, can you see that the sea level at the various latitude layers seem to have no coherent relationship with the subsurface ocean temperatures at that same latitude layer?

Fig. 10a
What I am getting at is that the "thermal expansion is the major cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" hypothesis does not match the picture the datasets present for our consideration.

Fig. 10b
For example, the steep sea level rise at latitude Layer Five is not matched with comparable ocean temperature rises at any level, or at all levels for that matter when we closely compare Fig. 3a with Fig. 3b.

When you compare them, remember to match the years in the "Fig a" and "Fig b" graphs, because the PSMSL tide gauge records can go back way further than the WOD records.

That said, still the year by year picture presented in the two graphs, IMO, indicate that thermal expansion and contraction are not "the" or even "a" major player in the picture.

Greenland, Antarctica, and large land based glacier fields which are now, and have been for a long time, melting into the ocean, are the major factors (i.e. displacement).

In second place is ghost-water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

That boils down to melt water and ice entering the ocean.

But more than just that, the loss of ice mass equates to a loss of gravitational pull on ocean water around the coasts of the land where the ice sheets are located.

They are freed from the ice sheets' gravitational power, to then be relocated in the direction of the Equator (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

The massive amounts of global warming heat is, for the very most part, being absorbed by the oceans.

It is, by various mechanisms, mixing with the seemingly inexhaustible supply of cold ocean waters below the warm upper level.

This is nothing less than observable evidence of the dynamic of the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that heat flows in the direction from hot or warm toward cold or cool.

If there are impediments to that, in terms of salinity and the like, the temperature measurements reflected in the graphs depict the fact that there are several other mechanisms which force various degrees of heat exchanges.

The temperatures go up and the temperatures go down in these deep layers of ocean water (Evidence of Deep-ocean Heat Uptake, Meltwater in Ocean Depths).

The WOD graphs (the "Fig a" graphs) show that heat exchanges are causing temperature changes over the years, and across all these increasingly well measured depths of the oceans.

The PSMSL graphs (the "Fig b" graphs) show us that this is not reflected in any observable coherent manner in terms of comparable sea level changes.

IV. Conclusion

Something else is driving it, and that something else is melting and disintegrating ice sheets and land glacier fields.

We call that something else the degenerating cryosphere.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment