Dredd Blog: New Slang

The graphic at Fig. 1 shows five oceanographic depth levels of the ocean environment (a.k.a. pelagic 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 depths

0 - 10m

10m - 20m

20m - 30m

30m - 50m

50m - 75m

75m - 100m

100m - 125m

125m - 150m

150m - 200m

Mesopelagic (>200 m to 1000 m)

WOD depths

>200m - 250m

250m - 300m

300m - 400m

400m - 500m

500m - 600m

600m - 700m

700m - 800m

800m - 900m

900m - 1000m

Bathypelagic (>1000 m to 4000 m)

WOD depths

>1000m - 1100m

1100m - 1200m

1200m - 1300m

1300m - 1400m

1400m - 1500m

1500m - 1750m

1750m - 2000m

2000m - 2500m

2500m - 3000m

3000m - 3500m

3500m - 4000m

Abyssopelagic (>4000 m to 5500 m)

WOD depths

>4000m - 4500m

4500m - 5000m

5000m - 5500m

Hadopelagic (>5500 m)

WOD depths

>5500m

[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).