The Layered Approach To Big Water - 5

Fig. 1

I. Background

Today, we will cover four layers (2,3,14, and 15), leaving the remaining four layers (0,1,16, and 17) for next time.

Then, we will have covered the Earth's entire ocean surface, and its depths, in this series (The Layered Approach To Big Water, 2, 3, 4).

In general, some of the big water layers covered today have more gyrations than those covered so far, because the closer we get to the poles the more the great ice sheets and glacial fields have a visible, measurable impact on ocean temperatures, salinity, sea level, and currents.

Fig. 2a

As those great ice sheets and glacial fields melt and disintegrate, so does the power of their gravitational pull on ocean water around them (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4) resulting in sea level fall near them as well as sea level rise further away from them as the hidden-in-plain-sight gravity-held water is relocated by the Earth's rotation, tides, and larger gravity field (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

The changes associated with global warming impact not only the atmosphere and biosphere, they also impact on the oceans andthe cryosphere.

II. Sea Level Change Fingerprints

Fig. 2b

Those changes leave "fingerprints" which we can use to trace the rise and fall of ocean temperatures and sea level back to the ice sheets and glacial fields that melt and disintegrate to cause ocean temperature and sea level changes (SLC Fingerprints R Us, 2; Calling All Cars: The Case of the "Missing Six", 2, 3, 4, 5).

Fig. 3a

III. Today's Layers

Fig. 3b

The graphs at Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b show the water temperatures at all depths, as well as sea levels measured in Layer Three (marked on Fig. 1).

Over the years scientists have dutifully collected this information before there was a significant knowledge and scientific consensus of global warming.

We are granted a peak at the results of their hard work, and at no cost to us (except for the time to peruse it).

Fig. 4a

I can't identify any compelling evidence that thermal expansion caused the changes in sea level depicted in Fig. 2a compared with Fig. 2b.

Fig. 4b

Layer Fourteen, depicted in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b, comes closer, but a look at the subsurface temperature analysis casts some shade on that notion:

"NOTICE: these values are NOT temperatures, they are CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE:

Combined averages for 36 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average was 94 upward & 74 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = 0.307199
• 200-400m = -0.0361685
• 400-600m = 0.0603223
• 600-800m = -0.104663
• 800-1000m = -0.0230397
• 1000-3000m = -0.0101448
• >3000m = -0.0157178

Average change, all 7 levels: 0.177787

Years involved: 1956 -> 2016 (60 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (0.177787 ÷ 60): 0.00296312 C per year"

Fig. 5a

The sea level rise and fall indicated in Layer Fourteen (Fig. 3b) does not closely match the "0.00296312 C" per annum temperature rise, even though it is one of, if not the, closest graphed so far.

But, when we come to Layer Two (Fig. 4a, Fig. 4b), the momentum switches the other way once again.

Fig. 5b

Layer Two is impacted by the Glacier Bay glacial field area of Southeast Alaska, and the Greenland Ice Sheet impact on Scandinavia (Proof of Concept - 3, 5).

The stark sea level fall in those areas is in contrast with the positive temperature increases in the zones of Layer Two:

"NOTICE: these values are NOT temperatures, they are CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE:

Combined averages for 24 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 48 upward & 46 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = 0.554762
• 200-400m = -0.361864
• 400-600m = -0.743106
• 600-800m = 0.079645
• 800-1000m = -0.206903
• 1000-3000m = -0.112317
• >3000m = 0.0393799

Average change, all 7 levels: -0.750403

Years involved: 1971 -> 2016 (45 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (-0.750403 ÷ 45): -0.0166756 C per year"

Over the span of 45 years, shown in Fig. 4a, there was a decrease in temperature, all levels considered, and in fact, sea level fell sharply (Fig. 4b).

That would be an argument for thermal contraction, not thermal expansion.

The same thing can be said if we consider the final layer, Layer Fifteen (Fig. 5a, Fig. 5b).

It supports a thermal expansion / thermal contraction scenario, not an exclusive expansion:

"NOTICE: these values are NOT temperatures, they are CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE:

Combined averages for 36 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 68 upward & 68 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:

• 0-200m = -0.179962
• 200-400m = 0.123373
• 400-600m = 0.0333803
• 600-800m = 0.128745
• 800-1000m = 0.141013
• 1000-3000m = -0.0721937
• >3000m = 0.040435

Average change, all 7 levels: 0.21479

Years involved: 1956 -> 2016 (60 yrs)

Average annual combined change:

• (0.21479 ÷ 60): 0.00357983 C per year

The temperature analysis shows an overall temperature increase of 0.00357983 C per year for 60 years, for a total increase of 0.21479 degrees C.

Yet the sea level is falling lately, probably because it is not far from Antarctica.

IV. Conclusion

Today's analysis, combined with the analysis of other layers considered in previous posts, where there should have been conclusive proof of thermal expansion as the main cause of sea level rise, but wasn't, I remain skeptical (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 13).

That, combined with the clear proof of cryosphere disintegration and melting, renders the situation such that I can't buy the "thermal expansion is the main cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" hypothesis.

But we still have 4 layers to go (arctic and antarctic layers).

Stay tuned.

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