 |
| Fig. 1a |
 |
| Fig. 1b |
 |
| Fig. 1c |
I. Background
Saturday's post criticized headline and content "puffery" (a.k.a. hyperbole a.k.a. hype).
 |
| Fig. 2a |
 |
| Fig. 2b |
 |
| Fig. 2c |
The going from "warm" to "hot" without convincing evidence was criticized as unwise for those who are not global warming induced climate change denialists (Questionable "Scientific" Papers - 17).
Today, I follow up on that post with data from the World Ocean Database (WOD) which was mentioned in that post (ibid).
II. New Stuff
I am also introducing a graph scenario that uses an old Dredd Blog practice of graphing depth layers of the world oceans.
That layer graphing was discontinued when the seven depths technique was changed to the thirty-three depths technique to match the WOD depths scheme.
The new layers currently consist of 0-700m, 701-2000m, and >2000m.
Those depth levels are the ones most often used in the papers I have read.
I have not included the thermal expansion graphs of these three depth layers because I have more work to do on that aspect of the "new stuff" presentation.
III. Analyzing The New Stuff
The graphs at Fig. 1a - Fig. 1c show that the ocean temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 1a), the Southern Hemisphere (Fig. 1b), and the combination of both hemispheres (Fig. 1c) show a slight decrease in overall ocean temperature (the numbers are presented later on in this post).
The word "hot" is not a wise word to use unless one wants to feed the trolls who call that "climate porn" (Pole Dancing In The Lab).
I recall Professor Rignot saying (concerning water temperatures that are melting Antarctica's ice sheets and shelves from below) that we should not take a bath in water at that temperature because we would freeze to death in it.
The point being that water at 4 deg C is 39.2 degrees F.
That cold, not hot, water will melt glacial ice which is at 0 deg C, because of the laws of thermodynamics (not because it is "hot" water).
Yes, "freezing cold water" will melt "ice cold ice" (and is doing so on a very massive scale in Greenland and Antarctica at this very moment).
IV. By The Numbers
Here are some actual numbers from the CSV file that Dredd Blog software generated to use for making the graphs at Fig. 1a - Fig. 1c mentioned above:
NH begin:Wouldn't it be nice if the gummit checkbook balanced that nicely?
17.452.....(0-700m)
3.93645...(701-2000m)
2.44356...(>2000m)
======
23.83201 ÷ 3 = 7.944003333 Avg. (T)
NH end:
13.4354...(0-700m)
4.22991...(701-2000m)
3.2735.....(>2000m)
======
20.93881 ÷ 3 = 6.979603333 Avg. (T)
(7.944003333 - 6.979603333 = 0.9644 deg C decrease)
SH begin:
13.7684...(0-700m)
4.43371...(701-2000m)
1.29322...(>2000m)
======
19.49533 ÷ 3 = 6.498443333 Avg. (T)
SH end:
10.7843...(0-700m)
3.07471...(701-2000m)
1.21901...(>2000m)
======
15.07802 ÷ 3 = 5.026006667 Avg. (T)
(6.498443333 - 5.026006667 = 1.472436666 deg C decrease)
0.9644 + 1.472436666 ÷ 2 = 1.2184 deg C decrease (T)
NHSH begin:
15.6102
4.18508
1.86839
=======
21.66367 ÷ 3 = 7.221223333 Avg. (T)
NHSH end:
12.1098
3.65231
2.24625
=======
18.00836 ÷ 3 = 6.002786667 Avg. (T)
7.221223333 - 6.002786667 = 1.2184 deg C decrease (T)
Anyway, as you can see the Northern Hemisphere (NH) plus Southern Hemisphere (SH) WOD values match the Global (NHSH) values.
V. Salinity Graphs
The salinity graphs at Fig. 2a - Fig. 2c show some interesting severe gyrations that are not like the more reserved temperature patterns.
Those are likely due to freshening, El Nino / La Nina episodes, and perhaps precipitation (rain, snow).
VI. Concluding Caveats
We only know what we know about the world oceans from the measurements of the world (The World According To Measurements, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
To make the graphs depicted in today's post, I began with about a billion measurements in the CTD and PFL datasets from the World Ocean Database.
I condensed them down into WOD zone pairs (salinity, temperature) in an SQL server database, and now work from it.
The quantity of measurements taken in the third depth level (>2000m) is not robust, compared to the quantity of measurements taken in the other two layers.
Even the ARGO flotilla, which is abundantly deployed, only goes down to about 2,000 meters.
Ignoring the other half of the ocean (2000 -> ~3686) then pontificating about how "hot" it is needs to stop.
That should be replaced with an active deep water flotilla to measure it at all depths (it is worth doing).
The previous post in this series is here.
Waiting my turn at the library for Jeff Goodell's ' The Water Will Come'.
ReplyDeleteNPR interview:
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559736126/climate-change-journalist-warns-mother-nature-is-playing-by-different-rules-now
Mark,
DeleteThat link, you know, is to a, you know, guy who has set a, you know, record:
"On the evening of Jan. 17, Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein appeared as a guest on Piers Morgan Live on CNN to discuss his plan to make a movie that will attack the National Rifle Association and to respond to accusations that his films portray the Catholic Church negatively. While the majority of the viewing audience likely focused on the content of Weinstein's replies, a smaller segment of the audience might have been alarmed (or annoyed or amused) by the movie producer's penchant for using the meaningless phrase “you know” in his discourse. Indeed, Weinstein used that term a whopping 84 times during the broadcast." (Like, Uh, You Know: Why Do Americans Say 'You Know' And Use Other Verbal Fillers So Often?)
Yep, Godell used "you know" about 135 times, setting a, you know, new record as Harvy Weinstein drops to second place.
Godell won't put the "you know" in the book.
ReplyDeleteI noticed he mentioned thermal expansion and Mother Nature, but not gravity in the transcript Mark linked to.
I don't think "Mother Nature" is the proper term to use, Climate System is the proper term.
The system is damaged so the subsystems, such as weather, will exhibit damaged activity.
He gets the danger of sea level rise quite well in terms of potential ("And so you know, with only, you know, 5 or 6 feet of sea level rise, which we could certainly see by the end of the century, you know, you're going to see major parts of the city inundated").
Yes, Jeff does get it in terms of the bottom line:
Delete"I think there's a big fallacy out there that if we move quickly enough we can stop sea level rise…and that’s not the case,” Goodell says. “No matter how fast we move to renewable power we’re still gonna have sea level rise. We can change the trajectory of it; we can change the ultimate height of it, but we still have to have this conversation about dealing with it -- because we’re already too far down that path.”
(Climate One).