Sunday, January 27, 2019

Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy - 3

WOD Layers
I. Preface

In today's post I am furnishing graphs from all World Ocean Database (WOD) Layers (Fig. 1).

Only datasets which contain full and accurate in situ records (temperature, practical salinity, depth, latitude, longitude, and date) are used.

The WOD datasets used are APB, CTD, DRB, GLD, MRB, OSD, PFL, and UOR, but the XBT, MBT and surface-only datasets are excluded.

Some non-WOD datasets are also used (NASA OMG for Greenland,  SOCCOM for Antarctica, and Woods Hole Institute for Arctic ocean areas).
Pelagic Depths

In short, billions of records are used to generate the CSV files and subsequent graphs.

All of the mentioned in situ records are first conformed (averaged together) to the 33 WOD depth levels, which range from the ocean surface to the ocean bottom as depicted in the WOD Manual (at Appendix 11).

Then, each depth-group record is converted into TEOS-10 values using the TEOS-10 oceanographic toolkit (TEOS-10 software).

Once the conversion to TEOS-10 takes place, the records are averaged into Pelagic (Fig. 2) depth groups: Epipelagic ("epi"), Mesopelagic ("meso"), Bathypelagic ("bathy"), Abyssopelagic ("abysso"), and Hadopelagic ("hado").

Once those conversion calculations are done my software generates CSV files for 1) all layers averaged together (those graphs are in this post), and 2) each layer separately (those graphs are in appendices as shown below).

II. Graphs

Those CSV files are then converted into graphs that detail Conservative Temperature ("CT"), Absolute Salinity ("SA"), Potential Enthalpy ("hO"), and Infrared Photon ("IR ℽ") mole equivalent.

The "all" graphs and the "individual layer" graphs consist of one graph for each Pelagic depth layer group (that is unless there are insufficient measurements available at some depths, such as at polar regions).

Here is the list with links to the appendices:

Layers Appendix
All this post
0, 1, 2, 15, & 16 One
3, 4, & 5 Two
6, 7, & 8 Three
9, 10, & 11 Four
12, 13, & 14 Five

III. The Purpose

A substantial portion of the scuttlebutt in the warming commentariat is about finding world ocean heat content (OHC) and ocean heat flux (OHF).

Currently, the models are said to have been using, and are still using, an incorrect variable to search for and analyze OHC and OHF (McDougall 2003; Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy; TEOS).

Perhaps that is why it is reported lately that there was a hiatus of the laws of thermodynamics or something like that:
"An accurate diagnosis of ocean heat content (OHC) is essential for interpreting climate variability and change, as evidenced for example by the broad range of hypotheses that exists for explaining the recent hiatus in global mean surface warming."
(Fasullo 2017, emphasis added). There is no mention of TEOS-10 in that paper, that is, there is no mention of the current official oceanography standard which sets forth the proper understanding of OHC and OHF (TEOS-10 Working Group).

There is a lot of complaining about XBT and other problematic records that is used as an excuse not to use the vast store of oceanographic records, and to instead use models which make whatever numbers the programmers tell them to.

As I stated above, the correct procedure is to stop using both the problematic records and the problematic models.

All we have to do is use the good data and the good standard TEOS-10 if we really want good results.

IV. Finding Thermodynamic Equilibrium
for OHC and OHF

The graphs show that Conservative Temperature, Potential Enthalpy, and Infra red energies that spread heat in the ocean is the proper place to shop for OHC and OHF.

The "heat content" variables are in thermodynamic proportion and sync throughout the world oceans at all depths, temperatures, and salinities.

Notice, however, that the Absolute Salinity ("SA") has a different life for the most part, not really in with the OHC and OHF crowd.

Except for a time or two.

How do we analyze that?

V. Sources of
Graph Line Change

It is not easy to analyze, at first blush, exactly what is going on in all of these graphs.

But for sure we must remember at all times that:
"IR radiation is one of the three ways heat is transferred from one place to another, the other two being convection and conduction." (The Ghost Photons - 2).
The transportation or transfer of heat in the ocean, then, would require us to include the SA in the analysis of every graph.

SA is transferred by the two other important concepts (convection, conduction) which show up in powerful ocean currents, so, the graph lines of SA surely involve results of ocean currents that cause ocean seawater mixing via "convection and conduction".

Some of these graphs show us that currents are altering the seawater at various and sundry depths and at various and sundry latitude layers.

Following OHC and OHF changes in the graphs can involve following infrared photons as well as following ocean currents.

None the less, the ocean at all levels is trafficking in ocean heat.

VI. Closing Thoughts

Let's remember one of the most important oceanographic locations where heat transfer, OHF, takes place.

That location is where extensions of ice sheets, as subsurface tidewater glaciers, meet seawater.

We need to consider that the IR ℽ (the infrared photon) can accomplish heat transfer with radiation, one of the most important forms of OHF.

I say that because molecules of seawater are not "the marines that hit the beach first" in an invasion of the world's tidewater glacier ice.

More likely, those who fly into the glacial ice undeterred by the seawater or the glacial ice, or even space itself, yes, the radiation, the photons, the invisible transporters of heat, should not be considered to be a minor force during the invasion and disintegration of tidewater glaciers by ocean heat content.

The IR ℽ are from "a 'land' down under ... can you hear the thunder? ... We better run, we better take cover."

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

Speaking of "the down under" (as he sings, listen while reading the lyrics here) ... (it isn't about Australia ... "we are in a land down under" and it's getting more under every day)

No comments:

Post a Comment