|Fig. 1 More Zones|
I have decided to use the mean average of those 5 depth levels to display general information (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 38).
I have been using up to 33 WOD depths from the WOD Manual (Appendix 11, page 132).
But since there are 33 of them, it is difficult to show them all in a post.
I have tried to narrow it to 3, 7, and random depths in the past, with suitable results, however the nomenclature of oceanography depth levels gives additional clarity.
But when I came across the Fig. 1 graphic while reading in Wikipedia (link under Fig. 1 graphic), I decided that it is time to use these depth levels in posts.
That does not mean I will change the use of the standard 33 depths in the WOD manual, here, and in my SQL server.
The values for the depths shown by name in Fig. 1 will be computed using the 33 standard depth in-situ WOD measurements as follows:
Epipelagic (surface to 200 m)
WOD depths0 - 10m10m - 20m20m - 30m30m - 50m50m - 75m75m - 100m100m - 125m125m - 150m150m - 200m
Mesopelagic (>200 m to 1000 m)
WOD depths>200m - 250m250m - 300m300m - 400m400m - 500m500m - 600m600m - 700m700m - 800m800m - 900m900m - 1000m
Bathypelagic (>1000 m to 4000 m)
WOD depths>1000m - 1100m1100m - 1200m1200m - 1300m1300m - 1400m1400m - 1500m1500m - 1750m1750m - 2000m2000m - 2500m2500m - 3000m3000m - 3500m3500m - 4000m
Abyssopelagic (>4000 m to 5500 m)
WOD depths>4000m - 4500m4500m - 5000m5000m - 5500m
Hadopelagic (>5500 m)
[Hadopelagic begins "about 6000m"
so I stayed with the 5500m WOD value]
As you can see, it is a matter of condensing by summation the WOD depths to derive the 5 pelagic ("relating to the open sea") zone values.
One value that changed as a result of this combination is a slight increase in the percentage of thermal expansion.
Previously it was calculated to be 2.37%, however, in this new 5-depth arrangement (see graphs below) it calculated as 3.63% (4.02195 ÷ 110.855 = 0.036281178 = 3.63%).
That is only a 1.26% difference, which I attribute to the condensation from 33 to 5 depth layers, timing of rounding, and the like (if I use the -100mm SLC starting point @ Fig. 5, the 110.855 becomes 210.855, so 4.02195 ÷ 210.855 = 0.019074482 = 1.91%).
That is only a 0.46% difference.
The bottom line is that thermal expansion / contraction is not "the major cause" or even "a major cause" of sea level change (On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38).
|Fig. 2 CT at Pelagic Zones|
|Fig. 3 SA at Pelagic Zones|
|Fig. 4 Thermosteric SLC at Pelagic Zones|
|Fig. 5 Sea level change according to Tide Gauges|
The next post in this series is here.