I am still hard at work on the C++ version of Teos-10.
It is a wrapper in the sense that I use the C version as the foundation.
That is, the C version is the testing criteria for the C++ version.
Epipelagic Depths
The methods/member functions of the C++ classes/objects must return the same values as the C functions of the C version.
I have accomplished that phase.
Mesopelagic Depths
The C++ version has been used on the World Ocean Database (WOD) in situ measurements and that came out well.
I have added some graphs that show the matching proportion in TEOS-10 concepts as generated by the C++ library.
Bathypelagic Depths
Notice that proportion matches in the Conservative Temperature (CT), Potential Enthalpy (hO) a.k.a. "Ocean Heat Content", and the infrared photon quantity (mol).
Regular readers will remember that concept as detailed in a Dredd Blog series (The Ghost Photons, 2, 3).
Any way, the matching pattern in those three show the fidelity of TEOS-10 in that the patterns, ratios, and synchronization holds up.
It does not match the Absolute Salinity (SA) because SA is not a proportional factor in Ocean Heat Content.
Abyssopelagic Depths
An official of the TEOS-10 realm said that the C++ version will be placed on their website and on GitHub.
When that takes place I will be getting back to regular "programming" here.
Way down the rabbit hole from His Majesty (misty don) is the hard headed one.
This is the story of the hurricanePompus Quisling who joined the shape shifters late in the game in order to replace T-Rex.
The state Quisling (Synonyms: apostate, backstabber, betrayer, double-crosser, double-dealer, Judas, recreant, serpent, snake, traitor, turncoat), who is also known as the lameoid, the Pompuseo Quisling who is acutely jealous of the Don Star.
His whining is to no avail, because the Banner and the Banner are in first place for the name "Lucifer II" even though they are stealing it (according to The Bartender).
Even the replacement for christianity churchianity (ghoullianity), has not been able to chug as much Teflon as the teflon don-the-drain.
But I am in the process of porting the TEOS-10 toolbox (C Programming Language version) into the C++ Programming language.
I am in the testing phase now.
So far so good.
The testing (comparing results of the C version to the C++ version) is exact out to a lot of decimal places on some high profile programs that process World Ocean Database data using data from all WOD zones.
Note this:
"C++ is the language which is used everywhere but mainly in systems programming and embedded systems. Here system programming means for developing the operating systems or drivers that interface with Hardware. Embedded system means things that are automobiles, robotics, and appliances. C++ is having higher or rich community and developers, which helps in the easy hiring of developers and online solutions easily.
Uses of C++ is referred to as the safest language because of its security and features. It is the first language for any developer to start, who is interested in working in programming languages. It is easy to learn, as it is pure concept based language. Its syntax is very simple, which makes it easy to write or develop and errors can be easily replicated. Before using any other language, programmers preferred to learn C++ first and then they used other languages. But most of the developers try to stick with C++ only because of its wide variety of usage and compatibility with multiple platforms and software."
So far I have ported about 20,000 lines of code which compiles into about a 7 meg shared library (".so" in Linux).
What will I do with it?
Ship it to TEOS or Github perhaps, or put it on CD's for readers.
We shall see.
I have finished the basic library which does the basic processing of in situ measurements (temperature, salinity, depth, latitude, and longitude) and their conversion into Conservative Temperature (CT), Absolute Salinity (SA), pressure P, and Potential Enthalpy (hO).
That allows a whole ocean of potential in itself.
The next extension of the library will deal with ICE.
I have written about one of the most often used phrases in the Warming Commentariat literature.
That phrase is "worse than previously thought."
Today's post continues the Dredd Blog tradition of highlighting that practice.
In a recent article title the phrase has become a paraphrase "New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding", or to put it another way:
"SRTM models the elevation of upper surfaces and not bare earth terrain. It thus suffers from large error with a positive bias when used to represent terrain elevations. This is especially true in densely vegetated and in densely populated areas. Mean error in SRTM’s 1–20 m elevation band is 3.7 m in the US and 2.5 m in Australia when using DEMs from airborne lidar as ground truth. Space borne lidar from NASA’s ICESat satellite, a sparser, noisier and less reliable source of ground truth than airborne lidar, indicates SRTM has a global mean bias of 1.9 m in the same band. This degree of error leads to large under-estimates of ECWL exposure, and exceeds projected sea-level rise this century under almost any scenario."
Sea level change (SLC) in the form of sea level rise (SLR) is more widespread and more of a threat than sea level fall (SLF) is, because SLF only takes place "near" (0 km - 2,000 km distance) large ice sheets (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) and "near" large land glacier areas (e.g. Glacier Bay Alaska and "Third Pole" Himalayas).
"Pseudo SLC" (land surface elevation rise and fall) is not SLC, it is land-surface elevation change (LSC).
However, it too can have and impact on seaports and should, where relevant, be factored in.
According to the Nature Communications paper linked to above in Section I, millions of additional people are exposed to SLC and coastal flooding by the new "worse than previously thought" estimates.
Seaports are also at additional risk, because they experience SLC at two critical points: high tide and low tide (daily Sun & moon caused SLC) in the form of higher and higher and/or lower and lower water levels (as Cryosphere melt caused SLC impacts them).
Further, in our era of SLC, in general the age of the seaport is also a factor.
That is because there will have been more SLC at older sites over time than at those more recently constructed seaports.
Thus, one size does not fit all, nor does SLC take place equally everywhere.
This means that even more millions will be impacted as seaports, which furnish them with goods from far across the oceans, are damaged or destroyed by SLC and coastal flooding.
The world according to measurements, to be accurate, must include a robust quantity of ocean measurements in order to be comprehensive.
Yet we have a more comprehensive set of measurements of the planet Mars than we do of the oceans of the Earth:
"But even with all the technology that we have today -- satellites, buoys, underwater vehicles and ship tracks -- we have better maps of the surface of Mars and the moon than we do the bottom of the ocean. We know very, very little about most of the ocean. This is especially true for the middle and deeper parts far away from the coasts."
Today's post is about the reality that we are still behind in this endeavor to find out where we are in terms of our own planet (You Are Here).
II. Updates
I recently updated the OMG, WHOI, and SOCCOM sections of the Dredd Blog databases composed of in situ ocean measurements, which along with the WOD data itself (about 5.5 billion in situ measurements - WOD Update) gives us a workable trend view.
III. Appendices
Even with all that being available, one of the appendices to today's post shows a lot of zero percentages for widespread areas of the ocean, indicating that arguably it has not yet been explored sufficiently (Appendix One).
Appendix One contains Pelagic Depth percentages that add up to ~100% for each year that data was collected by hard working scientists and then stored in those data sets.
The other appendix is composed of graphs that include the trend view using all of the data, including the updates (Appendix Two).
IV. Closing Comments
We have a long way to go before we know as much as we should know don't we?
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
