In Search Of Ocean Heat - 3

Fig. 1 WOD Layers

I. Background

Today's post takes a new look at how we can understand the thermodynamics of seawater.

Specifically, this post is about CHANGE in the "heat content", that is, change in the "potential enthalpy" of a mass unit of seawater.

The basic technique of measuring the change in the heat content of seawater at various depths has been explained by oceanographers in published papers; (e.g. Potential Enthalpy: A Conservative Oceanic Variable for Evaluating Heat Content and Heat Fluxes, McDougal 2003, pp. 945-46).

Fig. 2 Pelagic depths

II. The Advanced Approach

Albert Einstein said that when researching and reporting on scientific matters we should "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler" and Dr. Jerry Mitrovica said "the best physics is the simplest physics."

Since we are talking physics when we talk about the laws of thermodynamics at play in seawater, as regular readers know, we are talking about why I use the TEOS-10 software toolbox:

"In 2010, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans (IAPSO) and the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) jointly adopted a new standard for the calculation of the thermodynamic properties of seawater. This new standard, now also endorsed by the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), is called TEOS-10 and supercedes the old EOS-80 standard which has been in place for 30 years. It should henceforth be the primary means by which the properties of seawater are estimated."

(TEOS-10 Primer, p. 2 PDF, emphasis added). For an extensive elaboration on TEOS-10, see also: McDougall, T.J. and P.M. Barker, 2011: Getting started with TEOS-10 and the Gibbs Seawater (GSW) Oceanographic Toolbox, 28pp., SCOR/IAPSO WG127, ISBN 978-0-646-55621-5.

As I explained in the first post of this series, the TEOS-10 toolbox offers a very simple way of determining heat content, in terms of computer software functions:

The potential enthalpy (h^O) is calculated as specific enthalpy (h) minus dynamic enthalpy (h^‡) using two TEOS-10 functions:

h = gsw_enthalpy_ct_exact
h^‡ = gsw_dynamic_enthalpy
h^O = h - h^‡ [my two cents worth]

(In Search Of Ocean Heat). Since that is simple physics, according to those far more knowledgeable than I am, it is the best physics.

III. How Not To Search For Ocean Heat Content

The simple approach has not generally been followed in scientific papers when the authors are researching and reporting on the thermodynamics of seawater.

For an example, a recent paper measured atmospheric characteristics ("the air") ostensibly to determine ocean heat content (On Resplandy Et Alia (2018), 2).

Some less egregious, but nevertheless the long way home examples, are:

"The projected ocean heat uptake (OHU, i.e., the increase in ocean heat content) in model simulations with an increasing CO2 content has a distinct regional structure. We analyse this for the CMIP3 SRES A1B scenario, for which we have the largest number of models available. For comparison, the same analysis for the 1% CO2 runs of CMIP3 and CMIP5 can be found in the auxiliary material. They show generally less heat uptake because ∫F dt is smaller, but the geographical features are similar." (Ocean heat uptake and its consequences for the magnitude of sea level rise and climate change, cf Study Evaluates Efficiency of Oceans as Heat Sink, Gas Sponge).

---

"Conduction, Convection, and Radiation

Oceans are critically important in the movement of heat over the planet. In elementary school you learned that heat moves by conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation and conduction are effective in moving heat vertically from the earth's surface, but are relatively unimportant in moving heat horizontally. Water, like air, is a fluid that can carry heat as it moves from one place to another. Meteorologists have different terms for horizontal and vertical movement of fluids: movement in the vertical direction driven by buoyancy is called convection, and movement in the horizontal direction is called advection. Convection contributes, with radiation and conduction, to the movement of heat in the vertical direction. But advection is essentially the sole process by which heat moves laterally over the surface of the earth.
...
Water Transport of Heat

Water is about 1,000 times as dense as air, and, since the amount of thermal energy transported by a moving fluid is proportional to its density, a volume of water can transport about a thousand times as much heat as an equivalent volume of air. The rate at which heat is transported, called the heat flux, is measured in Joules of energy per unit area per unit time, so the rate at which heat is transported is also proportional to the speed of movement (wind speed in air or current speed in the ocean). Since wind speed is typically on the order of 10 meters per second and ocean drift currents on the order of centimeters per second, the air speed is about a thousand times larger than ocean speed. Therefore, air moves a thousand times faster than water but carries only about 1/1000 as much heat per unit volume, which suggests that water is approximately of equal importance to air in moving heat over the planet." (Ocean Structure and Circulation).

The basic error, IMO, which these papers exhibit is to ignore "the world according to measurements" and TEOS-10.

I mean ignoring in situ measurements taken and thereafter processed using the official thermodynamics toolbox, relying instead on "old timey" models and assumed data values.

That is why I ask: "Where da measurements at?"

Fig. 3a

Fig. 3b

Fig. 3c

Fig. 3d

Fig. 3e

IV. How To Search For Ocean Heat Content

In the previous two posts of this series we looked at the mean average of actual heat content values (h^O) of the seawater.

Those values are expressed in terms of Joules per kilogram (J / kg), but today we take a new look by calculating only the mean average change in heat content that is taking place annually (still using J / kg of course).

Using the TEOS-10 toolkit, that new look simply means graphing an increase or a decrease in heat content per mass unit of seawater at various depths (Fig. 2) in various latitude bands (Fig. 1) across the oceans of the globe.

This means that today we are not graphing the actual values, instead, we are graphing the change in actual values from one year to the next.

That allows us to track "heat" that is driven by the laws of thermodynamics as that heat radiates through the ocean depths.

V. The Graphs Generally

As was done in the previous posts in this series, the layers marked with blue squares at Fig. 1 are the specific layers we are examining.

The graph values all start at zero change for the first measurement, then increase or decrease as TEOS-10 functions determine the heat content changes (Section II above).

Changes in heat content show that over time heat has radiated into or radiated out from seawater at various depths at those latitude band locations.

Furthermore, the graphs which show the Hadopelagic depth changes inform us that the heat content changes are radiating all the way down to the deepest depths.

Even though the deepest depth regions have not been measured as extensively (to say the least) as the upper depth levels have been, we can still see that heat content change reaches down to the deepest depths.

It is worthwhile to know that the in situ measurements processed into TEOS-10 values show that the heat content down there, like the depth levels above it, is also in flux.

Assuming that you have built your system, constructing the heat flux graphs only involves:

1) selecting a year to begin with,
2) setting the begin-year initial change value to zero,
3) recording that initial value, and thereafter
4) subtracting that initial value from each following year's value,
5) graphing the change in heat content for each year.

The graphs will leave a "fingerprint" of the heat flux over the span of the years chosen to be graphed and studied.

VI. The Graphs: Specifically

A. Fig. 3a

The graph at Fig. 3a details the changes in potential enthalpy (h^O), a.k.a. "heat content" and heat flux at WOD Layer 0 (Arctic seawater, see graph Fig. 3a here).

The sequence begins circa 1950 with a change value of zero J / kg.

Then the fun begins as we examine the fingerprints of the culprit we call "the heat" for the following years.

At this layer over this span of about 70 years, heat content decreases at the Epipelagic and Mesopelagic depth levels, but increases at the Bathypelagic depth level.

In other words the heat is obeying the 2nd law of thermodynamics (heat spontaneously flows to cold).

B. Fig. 3b

This layer 4 is at the latitude that crosses portions of the USA, Europe, and China.

The latitude layers away from the poles tend to have deeper waters, so we even have some Hadopelagic measurements and values at WOD Layer 4.

Comparing this change in heat content with the actual heat content graphs shows how the heat flux graphs tell us even more about heat content dynamics in the oceans (see graph Fig. 3b here).

A point to take note of is that each downward direction on each graph line tells us that heat radiated out of seawater at that level, while each upward direction on each graph line tells us that heat radiated into the seawater at that level.

So, we have direct evidence of heat flux into and out of seawater at all depths of the ocean along this latitude.

I noticed that, counter intuitively, the deepest level, the Hadopelagic, had more heat flux at times than shallower levels had.

This is a good time to remember that heat flux can be greater in one depth level even though that depth level can at the same time have less actual heat content than that other level which had more heat flux (i.e. the amount of change in potential enthalpy (h^O) does not ipso facto indicate the total amount of potential enthalpy (h^O) contained in that particular mass unit of seawater).

C. Fig. 3c

This WOD layer 8 has one boundary we call the Equator (latitude 0).

The heat flux here is also "at odds" with the total heat content (see graph Fig. 3c here).

D. Fig. 3d

The latitude of WOD Layer 12 crosses Australia (etc.).

The ocean at that latitude has some Hadopelagic depths.

An interesting tidbit is that its Epipelagic level has the most heat flux at times, indicating either heat flux radiating down from solar energy or radiating up from a sometimes warmer Mesopelagic level.

One case in point is the year 1997 where the Mesopelagic level just under it (red line) has a severe decrease in heat content when the Epipelagic had a sharp increase (compare Fig. 3d here).

The gist of heat flux, in terms of graph lines, is that when the line dips downward heat content at that level has radiated to another level, and when the graph line turns upward, it indicates some heat content from another level has radiated into that level.

In all cases, the radiation can come from below or from above, whether the change is an increase or a decrease.

E. Fig. 3e

This is WOD Layer 16 which circles Antarctica.

The greatest current on Earth flows in this layer, containing more flow of seawater than the fresh water flow in all of the Earth's great land-based rivers combined.

Like the Arctic, it does not have the Hadopelagic depth level.

It has some of the other characteristics of the Arctic, in that the deeper depths tend to show increases in heat flux in recent years.

Also, the heat content at the surface varies with heat flux (see Fig. 3e here).

VII. Conclusion

Heat flux means a change in heat content in a mass unit of seawater.

Graphs of actual heat content (h^O, potential enthalpy) do not show heat flux as clearly as change in h^O graphs used along with them do.

Using both together produces the best results, because both used together offer substantial support for a better understanding of heat content vs heat flux in all of the ocean basins (cf. Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy).

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

---

Must we?  ...

---

The Warming Science Commentariat - 12

"Don't Worry Be Happy"

I. Background

In this series I tend to point out the problems with the warming science commentariat that reports on scientific issues without knowing the depths of those issues (The Warming Science Commentariat, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

I am talking about trust-based reporting, not knowledge-based reporting (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

Generally, their reporting is rose colored glasses reporting which exemplifies the purported saying of Stalin: "the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of one million is a statistic" (Psychology Today).

But those rosy illusions are wearing as thin as the ice sheets are:

"On our current path, emissions will still be rising 30 years from now, and the world will have long ago left behind all reasonable chances of preventing the irreversible tipping points in the climate system that Hansen predicted.

If climate change was an urgent problem in 1988, it’s now an emergency."

(James Hansen’s legacy: Scientists reflect on climate change 1988). That seemingly alarming quote is, surprisingly, puffy too, because thirty years prior to Dr. Hansen's statements to congress in 1988, the "emergency" sense was already known to many scientists (in 1958, OSS).

It was even displayed on standard television programs back then:

---

---

II. Resistance To Global Warming Reality

The warming commentariat made the statements "it is way off in the future" and "worse than previously thought" famous and infamous.

But they were not the ones deep down in the cogs and gears of scientific research who worked with Humble Oil-Qaeda to prevent the real news from becoming front page material:

"I suspect the existence of what I call the `John Mercer effect'. Mercer (1978) suggested that global warming from burning of fossil fuels could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, with a sea level rise of several meters worldwide. This was during the era when global warming was beginning to get attention from the United States Department of Energy and other science agencies. I noticed that scientists who disputed Mercer, suggesting that his paper was alarmist, were treated as being more authoritative.

It was not obvious who was right on the science, but it seemed to me, and I believe to most scientists, that the scientists preaching caution and downplaying the dangers of climate change fared better in receipt of research funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out. I could vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper (Hansen et al 1981) that described likely climate effects of fossil fuel use, the Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund our research, specifically highlighting and criticizing aspects of that paper at a workshop in Coolfont, West Virginia and in publication (MacCracken 1983).

I believe there is a pressure on scientists to be conservative. Papers are accepted for publication more readily if they do not push too far and are larded with caveats. Caveats are essential to science, being born in skepticism, which is essential to the process of investigation and verification. But there is a question of degree. A tendency for `gradualism' as new evidence comes to light may be ill-suited for communication, when an issue with a short time fuse is concerned."

(The Ghost-Water Constant - 9, quoting Dr. Hansen). The psychological trances that were involved then were later enhanced by both mythical technology (The Technological Stairway To Heaven?) misconceptions as well as mythical genetic misconceptions (On The Origin of Genieology).

III. Avoiding The World According To Measurements

A recent paper attempted to convince its readers that we could avoid measurements of seawater but still be able determine how much heat was in the oceans.

The paper hypothesized that we could do so by measuring certain characteristics of the atmosphere (On Resplandy Et Alia (2018), 2).

In addition to math problems in the paper, which were admitted to, there were misunderstandings, in that, the paper alleged that there were not enough measurements in the world of scientific research to sufficiently inform us of ocean heat content.

In my post "The World According To Measurements - 22", I use one of several categories of seawater records to show that there are billions of measurements available for those who do the work to download and use them (Build Your Own Thermosteric Computational System, 2).

Not only that, the datasets available are constantly increasing in quality and quantity (An Updated World Ocean Database).

IV. Avoiding The Current Oceanographic Standards

You will not find many scientific papers being published currently (very few exist) that use the new world oceanographic standard software to do their computations.

That new standard is TEOS-10, which I now use incessantly (In Search Of Ocean Heat, 2).

I also use the information in scientific papers to determine exactly what to look for in the seawater in order to determine the heat content in the ocean:

"The quest in this work is to derive a variable that is conservative, independent of adiabatic changes in pressure, and whose conservation equation is the oceanic version of the first law of thermodynamics. That is, we seek a variable whose advection and diffusion can be interpreted as the advection and diffusion of ‘‘heat.’’ In other words, we seek to answer the question, ‘‘what is heat’’ in the ocean?
...

Fig. 2 Pelagic depths

The variable that is currently used for this purpose in ocean models is potential temperature referenced to the sea surface, θ, but it does not accurately represent the conservation of heat because of (i) the variation of specific heat with salinity and (ii) the dependence of the total differential of enthalpy on variations of salinity.
...
For example, an increase in pressure of 10⁷ Pa (1000 dbar), without exchange of heat or salt, causes a change in enthalpy that is equivalent to about 2.5ЊC. We show in this paper that in contrast to enthalpy, potential enthalpy does have the desired properties to embody the meaning of the first law.
...
Present treatment of oceanic heat fluxes is clearly inconsistent. Ocean models treat potential temperature as a conservative variable and calculate the heat flux across oceanic sections using a constant value of heat capacity. By contrast, heat flux through sections of observed data is often calculated using a variable specific heat multiplying the flux of potential temperature per unit area (Bryan 1962; Macdonald et al. 1994; Saunders 1995; Bacon and Fofonoff 1996). Here it is shown that the theoretical justification of this second approach is flawed on three counts. While the errors involved are small, it is clearly less than satisfactory to have conflicting practices in the observational and modeling parts of physical oceanography, particularly as an accurate and convenient solution can be found.
...
it is perfectly valid to talk of potential enthalpy, h⁰, as the 'heat content' ...”

(Potential Enthalpy: A Conservative Oceanic Variable for Evaluating Heat Content and Heat Fluxes, McDougal 2003, pp. 945-46, emphasis added; cf. TEOS-10 gsw_CT_from_pt). So, in this post and in its graphs (Fig. 3a - Fig. 3e) potential enthalpy is presented as a valid calculation of the 'heat content' in the ocean.

(In Search Of Ocean Heat). Even if the warming commentariat is unaware of all that, they could at least advocate for the use of temperature measurements of seawater at sufficient depths.

V. Conclusion

Perhaps the quote in Section I, at the beginning of this post, should read:

"On our current path, emissions will still be rising 30 years from now, and the world will have long ago left behind all reasonable chances of preventing the irreversible tipping points in the climate system that Hansen predicted.

If climate change was an urgent problem in [1958], it’s now [a mass murder mystery]."

"The Warming Science Commentariat" is a major member of Blind Willie McTell News, who poo pooed U.S. racism rumbling under the surface until it recently burst through in a gusher.

Like its big brother McTell News, "The Warming Science Commentariat" has poo pooed the existential threat of global warming induced climate change.

But that cover-up story too has, and will continue to, burst through in a gusher that will wash current civilization away:

This latest edition of the Living Planet Report is not for the faint-hearted. One key point that jumps out and captures the overall picture is that the Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures more than 10,000 representative populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish, has declined by 52 per cent since 1970. Put another way, in less than two human generations, population sizes of vertebrate species have dropped by half. These are the living forms that constitute the fabric of the ecosystems which sustain life on Earth – and the barometer of what we are doing to our own planet, our only home. We ignore their decline at our peril.

(Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch - 4, quoting Living Planet Report 2014, emphasis added).

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

---

---

Awe Topsy - 4

From there to here and here to there

Making history happens to us all.

It is inevitable, so we do it every day.

Much of dealing with history is like painting an old barn, because cover-up is an acceptable unacceptable way of cultures.

But the most painful history class is the autopsy, which in terms of "political history," is better conceived of as an "Awe Topsy."

An incredible amount of shape shifting (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) takes place downwind of the New World Odor generated by a political event such as an election autopsy (Awe Topsy, 2, 3).

The worst part of it is that some body has to do it:

In a “Dear Colleague” letter obtained by The Hill, Stefanik and other allies wrote Monday that the “disappointing results” of the November election “require an honest, transparent assessment of the structural operations and decision-making process that led to our party losing an historic number of seats.”

(GOP lawmakers call for autopsy on 'historic losses'). Only in the realm of political "science" does the body do an autopsy of itself, hence the need for a new word order calling for an "Awe Topsy."

All the cremlin before, during, and after the subject election has worked up some of our all lies allies (this time it is Saudi "money bags" Rabia).

That is a culture which has created a prince who envisioned a new form of the art, called "a live Awe Topsy" (US senators plan to condemn Saudi crown prince for world's first live autopsy of journalist Jamal Khashoggi).

Like I said, the history is in the making.

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

Cremlin: It Should Be A Verb

Fig. X The Whoever is missing

Dredd Blog advocates for the notion that the word "cremlin" should become a verb like similar words have (The Queens of Stalingrad - 3).

The word "cremlin" has already made it as a noun, for example, in the cremlin blog world "cremlin" is considered to be a scientific name (CREMLIN Workshop on mapping demands), a warlord in a game (High Warlord Cremlin), and one of The Whoever's candidate-in-waiting for attorney general (Urban Dictionary: Cremlin).

Fig. Y Putin on the Ritz

The definition Dredd Blog advocates for the verb form of "cremlin" is:

"any and all actionable activities conducted in a conspiracy to cover up for a 'whoever' "

But in Urban Dictionary speak it can also mean "Putin on the Ritz" or "Reigning in Moscow."

Several people have been snatched and tattooed for cremlin (See Fig. X, Fig. Y, and here), but we still do not know where they came from (Ancestry).

That is not the problem with the verb form of the word "cremlin," because there is more at stake.

One reason for that is because at this time it is clearly an inchoate form of absquatulate, which a number of the current cremlin gummit seem to have consummated.

Yep, the absquatulaters of Individual-1 are clearly cremlin up a storm.

---

---

In Search Of Ocean Heat - 2

Fig. 1 WOD Layers

I. Background

I have now placed the relevant data into my SQL server and am now excited to get back to work.

Improvements are welcome at Dredd Blog (e.g. world class TEOS-10).

Regular readers know that the World Ocean Database (WOD) folks recently updated their data: "The WOA18 prerelease - September 30, 2018 updates previous versions of the World Ocean Atlas to include approximately 3 million new oceanographic casts added to the World Ocean Database and renewed quality control."

Fig. 2 Pelagic depths

II. More Casts

Notice that the September 30, 2018 update involves not only improved quality control, it also includes substantially more data (about 3 million more "casts").

Regular readers will remember that I recently described what a "cast" is, and that millions of in situ measurements can be fit into a single cast (The World According To Measurements - 22).

III. After The Download

I downloaded all of the WOD-18 regular data in year by year format, converted it from WOD format into CSV format, and then loaded it into my SQL server.

I indicated that once that had been done, I would compare the WOD-13 to the ostensibly new and improved WOD-18 ("I plan to do some upcoming posts comparing the September update with the legacy data" - An Updated World Ocean Database).

Fig. 3a

Fig. 3b

Fig. 3c

Fig. 3d

Fig. 3e

IV. Let The Comparisons Begin

I decided that the easiest way to for readers to compare the two versions would be to do the same graphs as in the first post of this series (In Search Of Ocean Heat).

Not only that, I have numbered the graphics and the graphs in today's post with the same values that they had in the first post (so that they can be more easily compared one to the other).

V. Where The Heat Is

What is most important to remember is that in the search of "heat" in the waters of the oceans, it is appropriate to know how to measure it as it spontaneously flows from warmer waters to cooler waters.

World class scientists convinced me that "potential enthalpy" is the better or best way to conceive of ocean "heat" ("it is perfectly valid to talk of potential enthalpy, h⁰, as the 'heat content'" - Potential Enthalpy: A Conservative Oceanic Variable for Evaluating Heat Content and Heat Fluxes, McDougal 2003, pp. 945-46, emphasis added).

Another very important thing to keep in mind is that as the ice sheets at the poles melt and calve, and as that cold melt water and those icebergs enter the oceans, they change the temperature of the water.

So, currently the oceans are being warmed by the increasing amount of heat that would radiate into deep space if it were not for greenhouse gases caused by civilization's massive burning of fossil fuels; and currently the oceans are also being cooled at some places by cold melt water.

That is why the graphs of the heat at the poles show more volatility and oddity than those at mid latitudes do.

The warmer waters flowing into the polar regions mix with the cooler waters flowing out from from the melting ice sheets (Greenland 2.0 - 2, Mysterious Zones of Antarctica - 3).

Thermodynamically, the cold and warmer water temperatures tend toward equilibrium, but until that happens there is some non-intuitive volatility indicated by the graph lines.

VI. The Layers

Fig. 4

The graph headings are labeled with a description which includes the word "layer."

"Layers" in this context are latitude bands that are parallel to the equator, reaching from the equator all the way up to the north pole, and reaching all the way down to the south pole (Fig. 1).

Layer 0 is in the Arctic region, Layer 16 is in the Antarctic region, and Layer 8 is in the equatorial region.

VII. Conclusion

The reason we can even take on a software search for ocean heat is largely due to the functionality of TEOS-10.

We are indebted to scientist Josiah Willard Gibbs, who "wrote the book" on seawater thermodynamics (The World According To Measurements - 12).

In the days ahead we will continue to watch the ocean because it will have a huge impact on current civilization (Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States, 2, 3, 4; Why Sea Level Rise May Be The Greatest Threat To Civilization, 2, 3, 4, 5).

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

---

---