Sunday, September 8, 2019

Patterns: Conservative Temperature & Potential Enthalpy - 5

World Ocean Database (quads & layers)
I. Double Checking For Accuracy

One of the ways to estimate the accuracy of thermal expansion calculations is to see how much of a match the pattern (on a line graph) has with the patterns of Conservative Temperature (CT) and Potential Enthalpy (hO) on a line graph.

All Quadrants, 20m depth
All Quadrants, 600m depth
All Quadrants, 3000m depth
All Quadrants, SLC
Those two variables are related to Ocean Heat Content (OHC), and more than that, they are in thermodynamic proportion ("A new temperature variable called 'conservative temperature' is advanced that is simply proportional to potential enthalpy." - Trevor J. McDougall).

Which is good because thermal expansion or contraction calculations are an attempt to determine what effect heat changes in a mass of seawater will have on that mass of seawater's volume.

Thus, the CT and hO patterns should be considered to be the appropriate pattern for the thermal expansion or contraction pattern to match.

If the patterns do not match reasonably, then something is amiss in the thermal expansion and contraction calculations or data.
NE Quadrant, 20m depth
NE Quadrant, 600m depth
NE Quadrant, 3000m depth
NE Quadrant, SLC

NW Quadrant, 20m depth
NW Quadrant, 600m depth
NW Quadrant, 3000m depth
NW Quadrant, SLC
II. What 'Matching' Means

The graphs being observed for a match will not be to scale, just like today's graphs.

The thermal expansion and contraction digits are and will be small, compared to the CT and hO digits.

For example, on the "All Quadrants, 20m depth" graph (first graph at the top of the page) notice that where the thermal expansion and contraction digits are "0.06", they compare to digits "60" and "16" for the hO and CT variables.

Graphing software can also cause stretching and shrinking when thermal expansion or contraction, CT, and hO are graphed closely together as today's graphs are.

The 'match' to remember, then, is that thermal expansion should take place when CT and hO are increasing, but should become thermal contraction when CT and hO are decreasing.
SE Quadrant, 20m depth
SE Quadrant, 600m depth
SE Quadrant, 3000m depth
SE Quadrant, SLC

The pattern matching effort is not exercised in order to calculate the amount of sea level change (SLC), rather it is exercised in order to double check the computational sequences and methods.

Other graphs can check the magnitude, such as the five SLC graphs (one for each quadrant, and one for the combined quadrants) included in today's graphs.
SW Quadrant, 20m depth
SW Quadrant, 600m depth
SW Quadrant, 3000m depth
SW Quadrant, SLC

Incidentally, they show that thermal expansion is not 'the' or even 'a' major cause of SLC.

III. Limitations of Matching Patterns

I have not completely explored the entire range and scope of situations where the pattern matching test will hold.

For example, will it hold and still work for single WOD Zones?

Today's graphs can't tell us that, because they cover an entire quadrant, one fourth of the Earth's surface (many zones).

Will the pattern hold in much smaller areas, i.e., the area of a single zone?

Maybe I will pause, and do some tests and write about it in this post.

Be right back...

Just got back after confirming that using single zones is fine so long as the zone does not have multiple seacoast codes or too much land interference (all-water zones are best).

For example, notice Zone 1601, which has a portion of the North Atlantic on its west side, and a portion of the Baltic Sea on its east side, with land between them.

That causes some pattern aberration, but not completely so.

These two (N.Atlantic, Baltic) types of waters have different "just about everything," so, one must process them in two graphs (N. Atlantic seacoast code, and Baltic seacoast code) in order to try to generate matching patterns.

At any rate, you can calibrate your source code by using zones with only one body of water (zones with plenty of in situ measurements in just plain seawater - no islands, etc.).

The thermosteric computations are more sensitive than the CT and hO are, and therefore are useful as a fine tuning exercise.

IV. Acquiring SLC Totals

Another interesting phenomenon that came to mind is that the combined thermal expansion and contraction of the 33 depth levels results in a required total, not just a "convenient" mean average, such as with Global Mean Average sea level.

That is because to determine the actual total SLC caused by thermosteric volume changes at the 33 WOD depths, one must add all of the mass unit slices (that is the 33 individual depth level masses and their individual quantity of changes) to acquire the sum of the SLC.

It isn't a mean average, it is the combined total thermosteric volume change of that zone.

The graphs today on this page and in the appendix show the thermal expansion and contraction at various depth levels.

They slice a zone into 33 sections of mass.

The thermal expansion or contraction of each section of mass must be added together to derive the total SLC for any particular quadrant (or zone).

This is fully explained here, showing the TEOS-10 methods and quoting from Jorda and Gomis (2013).

Thus, thermal expansion and contraction caused SLC can't be determined in the same manner as tide gauge recorded SLC is.

V. The Appendices of Zone Graphs

I have provided two appendices for the single-zone thermodynamic proportion graphs (Appendix One, Appendix Two).

I used 10m, 300m, and 1400m as the depths unlike I did in the quadrant graphs.

Anyway, it turns out that single zones also show the thermodynamic proportion, synchronization, and equilibrium of the parameters CT, hO and thermal expansion / contraction when the software is prepared in accordance with TEOS-10 methods.

One thing this means is that the calibration of software will be easier, and that we can use CT to tell us a lot more than in situ measurements do.

When you look at the pattern of ups and downs of CT you are looking at the ups and downs of OHC and OHF.

Using CT makes "zeroing in" much easier and less of a fishing expedition than it otherwise can be.

VI. History of the Thermal Expansion Hypothesis

The history of the scientific hypothesis that solar activity is the root cause of climate change ends with a falsified hypothesis.

However, that has not deterred Oil-Qaeda from continuing, over the past hundred years or so, to promote the idea that variation on the Sun causes not only climate change, but also causes SLC by warming or cooling the oceans.

That version of SLC has been touted as "the" major cause of SLC and more recently as "a" major cause of SLC.

Thermal expansion is neither "the" major cause or even "a" major cause, it is only a minor cause, contrary to the false claim ("Currently, the main contributors to rising global mean sea level are the thermal expansion of the world's ocean...") here suggests without any evidence.

The saga of Oil-Qaeda's deceit of the public has been chronicled in Merchants of Doubt.

Several Dredd Blog series have considered the ways and means that Oil-Qaeda uses (see list under heading "Oil-Qaeda" here).

The history of this hideous Oil-Qaeda endeavor is long-winded, but clear:
"Despite widespread skepticism, the study of [solar] cycles was popular in the 1920s and 1930s. By now there were a lot of weather data to play with, and inevitably people found correlations between sunspot cycles and selected weather patterns. Respected scientists and over-enthusiastic amateurs announced correlations that they insisted were reliable enough to make predictions.

Sooner or later, every [Sun change=climate change] prediction failed. An example was a highly credible forecast that there would be a dry spell in Africa during the sunspot minimum of the early 1930s. When that came out wrong, a meteorologist later recalled, 'the subject of sunspots and weather relationships fell into disrepute, especially among British meteorologists who witnessed the discomfiture of some of their most respected superiors.' Even in the 1960s, he said, 'For a young [climate] researcher to entertain any statement of sun-weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank.' Specialists in solar physics felt much the same. As one of them recalled, 'purported connections with... weather and climate were uniformly wacky and to be distrusted... there is a hypnotism about cycles that... draws all kinds of creatures out of the woodwork.' (This was a robust tradition: into the 21st century, enthusiasts with weird or incomprehensible theories of solar influences, backed up by selected weather data and intricate graphs, continued to show up at scientific meetings of meteorological societies.) By the 1940s, most meteorologists and astronomers had abandoned the quest for solar cycles in the weather. Yet some respected experts continued to suspect that a connection did exist, lurking somewhere in the data."
(Changing Sun, Changing Climate?, emphasis added;  cf. Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions). The continuum of denial is funded and fueled by Oil-Qaeda (Smoke & Fumes).

VII. Closing Comments

The thermodynamic proportionality of TEOS-10 components and variables is a key for continuing the hunt for OHC and OHF.

Let's keep the cranks out of the conversation and rely on the most purified and tested scientific accomplishments of Josiah Gibbs.

Einstein did:
Listening to Gibbs, who is perhaps the most influential historical voice in ocean thermodynamics (encapsulated in TEOS-10) would also help:
"Albert Einstein called him 'the greatest mind in American history.' Gibbs’s studies of thermodynamics and discoveries in statistical mechanics paved the way for many of Einstein’s later discoveries."
(American Physical Society). Especially since "encapsulated" means:
"TEOS-10 is based on a Gibbs function formulation from which all thermodynamic properties of seawater (density, enthalpy, entropy sound speed, etc.) can be derived in a thermodynamically consistent manner."
(Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010, emphasis added). Or they can continue to flop around like the scientists who forgot about gravity in the ocean realm, as pointed out by Woodward 1888; scientists who therefore could not figure out some major variations in sea level change (NASA Busts The Ghost).
(In Search Of Ocean Heat - 5). We should too.

The previous post in this series is here.

No comments:

Post a Comment