Friday, February 17, 2017

The Layered Approach To Big Water - 6

Fig. 1 The WOD Ocean World
This post will complete the first look at all of the ocean areas on Earth (The Layered Approach To Big Water, 2, 3, 4, 5).

The WOD database has 18 layers based on latitudes, which are numbered 0 through 17.

The final four layers are 0,1, 16, and 17 (Fig. 1).

These last four are in some rugged areas, so I am not including sea level graphs because of the dearth of PSMSL tide gauge stations in these harsh environments.

Fig. 2
These graphs have some sharp changes in temperature.

For example, Layer Zero shown in Fig. 2 has a large spike circa 1992, then several more in recent years.

Since the record for low sea ice in the Arctic (until this cycle), and Greenland's maximum surface melt, was set in 2012, the spike in those years seems reasonable.

I am not sure about the 1992 spike however, but I will look into it later when I assimilate the latest update (Jan. 2017) to the WOD dataset.

Fig. 3
Layer One is shown in the graph at Fig. 3, and it too is quite active, in terms of temperature changes, because it is up in that volatile area too.

Fig. 4
But the most strange and active areas are Layer Sixteen and Layer Seventeen.
Fig. 5

The surface layer of Layer Sixteen is shown to be colder than deeper areas, which is typical of areas near coasts with ice sheets, Antarctica in this case.

The most strange is Layer Seventeen (Fig. 5) because it is a simulation, except for the years 2008 and 2009.

There were only two years with data so I could not graph it that way.

So I used data from Layer Sixteen to fill in missing Layer Seventeen data, then guestimated the missing years, assuming a 5% variation from Layer Sixteen.

Remember how harsh of an area Antarctica is, especially around areas where the sea ice grounds to the ocean floor.

It takes specialized drones (even more sophisticated than ARGO) to travel under the ice to gather measurements.

Which is why there are so few CTD and PFL measurements.

So, take Fig. 5 with a grain of salt, it is pure guesswork except for 2008 and 2009.

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

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 3

My Dog: Jack of Hearts

A Dog Has Died
by Pablo Neruda

My dog has died.
I buried him in the garden
next to a rusted old machine.

Some day I'll join him right there,
but now he's gone with his shaggy coat,
his bad manners and his cold nose,
and I, the materialist, who never believed
in any promised heaven in the sky
for any human being,
I believe in a heaven I'll never enter.
Yes, I believe in a heaven for all dogdom
where my dog waits for my arrival
waving his fan-like tail in friendship.

Ai, I'll not speak of sadness here on earth,
of having lost a companion
who was never servile.
His friendship for me, like that of a porcupine
withholding its authority,
was the friendship of a star, aloof,
with no more intimacy than was called for,
with no exaggerations:
he never climbed all over my clothes
filling me full of his hair or his mange,
he never rubbed up against my knee
like other dogs obsessed with sex.

No, my dog used to gaze at me,
paying me the attention I need,
the attention required
to make a vain person like me understand
that, being a dog, he was wasting time,
but, with those eyes so much purer than mine,
he'd keep on gazing at me
with a look that reserved for me alone
all his sweet and shaggy life,
always near me, never troubling me,
and asking nothing.

Ai, how many times have I envied his tail
as we walked together on the shores of the sea
in the lonely winter of Isla Negra
where the wintering birds filled the sky
and my hairy dog was jumping about
full of the voltage of the sea's movement:
my wandering dog, sniffing away
with his golden tail held high,
face to face with the ocean's spray.

Joyful, joyful, joyful,
as only dogs know how to be happy
with only the autonomy
of their shameless spirit.

There are no good-byes for my dog who has died,
and we don't now and never did lie to each other.

So now he's gone and I buried him,
and that's all there is to it.




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

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

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.

Monday, February 13, 2017

The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan - 2

The Banner and The Banner
I. Unreal Banners

In the first episode of The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan I focused on two members, The Don and The ConWay.

Today, I will focus on two more members "The Banner" and "The Banner" ... see photo).

Both have "Steve" as their first names, because they know "Lucifer" has already been given to The Cruz by His Orangeness the First (On The Origin of Specious).

Steve Banner and Steve Banner both transferred in from The Inhofe's Trufiness Headquarters (Agnotology: The Surge - 16) after helping The Palin with her campaign endeavors (Book Politics Makes Strange Duplicities).

The Vainstream Media is all aflutter about who will survive to become Supreme Banner which will be determined by the difficult-to-live-through venerable Jabber The Whut Pecking Order Reality Games (On The Origin of Assholes).

The games will be judged by the current Supreme Banner who has reigned so long that everyone forgets exactly when, in 1928, it happened (The Ways of Bernays).

The Supreme Banner
Meanwhile, several social scientists are wondering if pollution has anything to do with the struggle (The Messy Link Between Air Pollution & Alzheimer’s Disease).

Anyway, the first leg of the pecking order games is to make a declarative statement that will be praised by The Don, but soundly rejected by those outside of Bullshitistan.

The Banner and The Banner have offered entries that will make the decision for their replacement very tough on The Supreme Banner (who is not a so-called judge).

First up, The Banner:
Senior White House Policy Advisor [Steve Banner] raised plenty of eyebrows on Sunday as the perused the talk-show circuit talking about cases of voter fraud (that don’t exist) and [his opponent The Banner's] lack of involvement in drafting executive orders (which, according to most reports, is the exact opposite of the truth).

But perhaps his most alarming statement was in reference to the federal judges in Washington rejecting [The Don's] Muslim ban.

“I think that it’s been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become in many cases a supreme branch of government,” [The Banner] told John Dickerson of CBS News, as first noted by Will Saletan of Slate. “The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media, and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of [The Don] to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.

[The Don] was, unsurprisingly, watching his performance, and gave the 31-year-old rave reviews.
(Apologies to Think Progress, emphasis added). The lackeys of The Banner were all aglow, thinking that there was no way for his opponent, The Banner, to overcome such an Alt Facts presentation.

Little did they know, however, that next up in the initial submission phase was The Banner with the ability to tell whoppers of the silver-tongued-devil degree (just like The ConWay):
[The Banner], who’s now ensconced in the West Wing as [The Don's] closest adviser, has been portrayed as [The Don's] main ideas guy. But in interviews, speeches and writing — and especially in his embrace of Strauss and Howe — he has made clear that he is, first and foremost, an apocalypticist.

In [The Banner's] view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For [The Banner], the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

What we are witnessing,” [The Banner] told The Washington Post last month, “is the birth of a new political order.”
(The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable, emphasis added). The Banner even dyed his hair grey in order to emphasize his channeling of The Grey Champion (rumors are that he counseled The Don not to dye his hair grey).

II. The Banner Trance

These kinds of trances bring on dark ages, because they become self-fulfilling prophecies.

For example, civilization's addiction to oil is the result of that same Apocalypse trance:
"From the moment he arrived at the Admiralty, a young man of destiny, Churchill started to prepare the fleet for the Battle of Armageddon he believed was inevitable.
...
Then, in 1911
, the German Kaiser provoked the Agadir crisis ... Churchill went to the Admiralty and his outlook transformed. He was immediately confronted with the decisive question: to convert the navy from coal to oil ... the "fateful plunge" was made ... in April 1912 ... five oil-burning battleships were approved.
...
Britain was well supplied with coal [but not oil]. It was the Royal Navy which was the impetus for the development of the oil industry
in Britain. The problem was supply and the security of that supply. Initially, the British government purchased shares in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, subsequently, British Petroleum [BP].
...
Then, to prevent further disruptions, Britain enmeshed itself ever more deeply in the Middle East, working to install new shahs in Iran and carve Iraq out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire.

Churchill fired the starting gun, but all of the Western powers joined the race to control Middle Eastern oil.
"
(The Universal Smedley - 2). The only advice I can offer in these situations is quite limited.

III. Conclusion

That advice is (Choose Your Trances Carefully, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

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

Yep. Desolation Row ...





Sunday, February 12, 2017

On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 13

Don't stay in the shallows
I. The Import of Thermal Factors

Why is ocean water (all of it, not just the surface) temperature important to the analysis of current and approaching sea level changes?

The current scientific commentariat is seized of the notion that the ocean, at any depth or temperature, can only expand (thermal expansion) if it is heated.

That is wrong, since fresh water does not follow that supposed rule, and neither does ocean water, which is different from fresh water only in the degree of temperature fluctuation that would cause either thermal expansion or thermal contraction.

Thus, we will consider the following quote from a peer reviewed paper as an answer to the question as to why the correct answer is so important:
Sea level is often conceived as being analogous to the depth of water in a bathtub, rising or falling everywhere as water is removed or added. The truth is far more complicated: sea level is more like the depth of water in a rotating, self-gravitating bathtub with wind and buoyancy fluxes at its surface; heterogeneous density; and a viscoelastic, deforming bottom. In other words, sea-level change is far from uniform.

Sea level in the sense used here, also known as relative sea level (RSL), is defined as the difference in elevation between sea-surface height (SSH) and the height of the solid-Earth surface. SSH, also called geocentric sea level, is defined with respect to a reference ellipsoid. RSL—the parameter that matters for those communities and ecosystems on land at risk from coastal flooding—can be measured with tide gauges; SSH is measured with satellite altimetry. While in the global mean, the difference between these two measures of sea level is small, local differences in RSL and SSH changes can be quite significant.
...
RSL rise poses a risk to communities, ecosystems, and economies, through inundation and by influencing the frequency and magnitude of coastal flooding. This risk is geographically variable, as both RSL changes and socioeconomic exposure vary with location. Failure to account for the differences between RSL change and global-mean sea-level (GMSL) change can lead to either under- or over-estimation of the magnitude of the allowance necessary to accommodate RSL rise. Accordingly, stakeholders and agencies responsible for quantifying the flooding hazard require local RSL projections for risk assessment and decision-making.
(Curr Clim Change Rep (2015) 1:192–204, emphasis added). In other words the answer is that millions of lives, at hundreds of local venues on coastlines around the world, depend on what public officials think that the present and the future of sea level rise is.

If those officials get it wrong, then their efforts will not be protective of the lives of their constituents (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

That extinction of sea ports series explains that you who live in the mid-west, far from the coastlines, are dependent on sea ports on the coast.

In fact, as goes the sea ports, so goes civilization (ibid).

In that context, the proper analysis of sea level change must, as the fundamental conceptual basis, know where the sea change originates (i.e. "what and where are the sources causing major sea level rise and fall?").

If that is not known, there can be no proper response to the dangers involved.

II. Probing the Depth Layers

As regular readers know, I have been analyzing ocean temperatures recorded in the World Ocean Database (WOD) with a layered approach, which means considering latitude layers that are equidistant from the Equator, but are nevertheless located in different hemispheres  (The Layered Approach To Big Water, 2, 3, 4).

As that is done, we probe the depths under the surface (where most of the temperatures are), down to the bottom, or as deep as the WOD datasets go.

So far, layers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 have been analyzed (layers 0, 1, 2, 15, 16, and 17 are yet to be done).

That analysis takes into consideration the sea level change in the particular layers being pondered.

III. The Bottom Line of the Analysis

The design of the analysis is to consider how much thermal expansion and contraction is involved at each layer, and by extension (since all of the worlds oceans are intended to be covered), how much total thermal expansion and contraction takes place in the whole of the oceans.

This approach is associated with the hypothesis that "most sea level change in the 19th and 20th centuries is caused by thermal expansion."

In other words, if that hypothesis is valid, then the observations should confirm it, or if the observations do not confirm it, then the hypothesis is falsified.

IV. Subsurface Analysis 

Today, I am presenting the subsurface mean average temperature changes shown by the analysis at each layer completed so far.

NOTICE: the following values are NOT temperatures, they are CHANGES IN TEMPERATURE:

A. Layer Three

Combined averages for 23 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 70 upward & 68 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.337132
  • 200-400m = 0.350664
  • 400-600m = 0.192843
  • 600-800m = 0.403621
  • 800-1000m = 0.233676
  • 1000-3000m = -0.0747387
  • >3000m = -0.143417
Average change, all 7 levels: 1.29978

Years involved: 1964 -> 2016 (52 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (1.29978 ÷ 52): 0.0249958 C per year

B. Layer Four

Combined averages for 25 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 121 upward & 112 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.11104
  • 200-400m = -0.570763
  • 400-600m = 0.287407
  • 600-800m = 0.474306
  • 800-1000m = 0.287892
  • 1000-3000m = -0.482644
  • >3000m = -0.543097
Average change, all 7 levels: -0.65794

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (-0.65794 ÷ 55): -0.0119625 C per year

C. Layer Five

Combined averages for 28 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 86 upward & 81 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.571661
  • 200-400m = -0.135107
  • 400-600m = -0.148795
  • 600-800m = -0.198917
  • 800-1000m = 0.251496
  • 1000-3000m = 0.35297
  • >3000m = 0.20562
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.898927

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.898927 ÷ 55): 0.0163441 C per year
  •  
D. Layer Six

Combined averages for 29 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 76 upward & 76 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = -0.285655
  • 200-400m = 0.771007
  • 400-600m = 0.444982
  • 600-800m = -0.450949
  • 800-1000m = -0.554331
  • 1000-3000m = -0.467585
  • >3000m = -0.180126
Average change, all 7 levels: -0.722657

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (-0.722657 ÷ 55): -0.0131392 C per year

E. Layer Seven

Combined averages for 32 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 62 upward & 62 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.247241
  • 200-400m = 0.657138
  • 400-600m = 0.249932
  • 600-800m = 0.163198
  • 800-1000m = -0.142136
  • 1000-3000m = 0.275811
  • >3000m = 0.147455
Average change, all 7 levels: 1.59864

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (1.59864 ÷ 55): 0.0290662 C per year

F. Layer Eight

Combined averages for 33 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 86 upward & 84 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.493106
  • 200-400m = -0.140973
  • 400-600m = -0.230762
  • 600-800m = -0.296653
  • 800-1000m = -0.0763039
  • 1000-3000m = 0.141082
  • >3000m = -0.0025456
Average change, all 7 levels: -0.11305

Years involved: 1956 -> 2016 (60 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (-0.11305 ÷ 60): -0.00188417 C per year

G. Layer Nine

Combined averages for 33 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 87 upward & 83 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 1.58264
  • 200-400m = -0.117891
  • 400-600m = -0.0053003
  • 600-800m = -0.141808
  • 800-1000m = -0.0996858
  • 1000-3000m = -0.501599
  • >3000m = 0.0590618
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.775414

Years involved: 1962 -> 2016 (54 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.775414 ÷ 54): 0.0143595 C per year

H. Layer Ten

Combined averages for 33 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 64 upward & 62 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.733258
  • 200-400m = 0.355852
  • 400-600m = 0.26554
  • 600-800m = 0.0905552
  • 800-1000m = 0.0267342
  • 1000-3000m = -0.388037
  • >3000m = -0.202781
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.881121

Years involved: 1967 -> 2016 (49 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.881121 ÷ 49): 0.0179821 C per year

I. Layer Eleven

Combined averages for 31 total WOD Zones
(values are in deg. C)

Concerning change, the mean average
was 59 upward & 58 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.586313
  • 200-400m = 0.350809
  • 400-600m = -0.32785
  • 600-800m = 0.124022
  • 800-1000m = 0.0277168
  • 1000-3000m = 0.101842
  • >3000m = -0.283399
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.579453

Years involved: 1961 -> 2016 (55 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.579453 ÷ 55): 0.0105355 C per year

J. Layer Twelve

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

Concerning change, the mean average
was 63 upward & 63 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.0850389
  • 200-400m = 0.277614
  • 400-600m = 0.0911808
  • 600-800m = 0.115266
  • 800-1000m = 0.204615
  • 1000-3000m = 0.555147
  • >3000m = -0.0581782
Average change, all 7 levels: 1.27068

Years involved: 1962 -> 2016 (54 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (1.27068 ÷ 54): 0.0235312 C per year

K. Layer Thirteen

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

Concerning change, the mean average
was 72 upward & 67 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.627579
  • 200-400m = 0.6432
  • 400-600m = 0.578951
  • 600-800m = 0.554063
  • 800-1000m = 0.235429
  • 1000-3000m = 0.492931
  • >3000m = 0.133829
Average change, all 7 levels: 3.26598

Years involved: 1956 -> 2016 (60 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (3.26598 ÷ 60): 0.054433 C per year

L. Layer Fourteen

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

Concerning change, the mean average
was 93 upward & 71 downward changes.

Average changes per depth level were:
  • 0-200m = 0.307199
  • 200-400m = 0.113274
  • 400-600m = 0.18116
  • 600-800m = 0.0422305
  • 800-1000m = 0.0593068
  • 1000-3000m = 0.0909547
  • >3000m = 0.0135098
Average change, all 7 levels: 0.807635

Years involved: 1956 -> 2016 (60 yrs)

Average annual combined change:
  • (0.807635 ÷ 60): 0.0134606 C per year

V. Conclusion

Thus, in the layers considered so far, the average for all 12 layers is 0.19570423 degrees C. (0.19570423 / 12 = 0.016308686).

The total years spanned by all 12 layers is 664 yrs; 664 / 12 = 55.33 yrs., so 55.33 × 0.016308686 = 0.9024 degrees total increase in temperature for all layers over the 55.33 years so far analyzed (the atmospheric temperature increase is a bit more than that).

Since we are now approaching the colder layers (Arctic, Antarctic) that 0.9024 deg. C total increase in ocean water temperature may not hold up.

Anyway you want it, the major source for changes in sea level is still looking to be the melting and disintegration of the cryosphere, not thermal expansion.

Stay tuned.

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