Monday, September 25, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 3

Fig. 1 GISS temp anomaly pattern (1880-2016)
I. A Test Case

I have added a test-case to the thermal expansion calculation modules.

It is a multi-purpose test case with a fixed ocean temperature system based on the boundary values of the various ocean basins.

The test-case software module is used to show the difference between thermosteric volume change in the constant-mass scenario compared to the changing volume scenario (Eustatic vs. Steric).

That is, the proper way to test for and/or calculate thermal expansion / contraction is to do so in a fixed (unchanging) mass-quantity of water (On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 2).

When the mass changes and the calculation of thermal expansion / contraction continues unabated, the increase in mass is likely to conflate eustatic changes with thermosteric changes, thus invalid results are likely to ensue (ibid).

To establish a fixed environment as a context for the test-case, I used my SQL database of ranges built from the WOD manual @ Appendix 11.1 and 11.2 (WOD Manual, p. 132; PDF page 142).

That sets the stage for testing, but first ...

II. WOD Update

The World Ocean Database (WOD) has posted its latest update (August).

It used to be a daunting task to integrate the updates into my system, but I have modified
Fig. 2 Home of The World Ocean Database
some of the conversion software so that it is a breeze now, compared to past updates, which take place about every quarter.

I thought I would show the graph changes that resulted from the additional ~50 million ocean temperature, depth, and salinity in situ measurements, which the update added to the SQL database.

 III. Hang Onto Your Hat

The import of the test-case module results can be grasped at once by looking at Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b.

Fig. 3a
These two graphs compare in situ temperature and salinity measurements with what should be expected in ocean basins that absorb 93% of the global increase in atmospheric (surface) heating.
Fig. 3b

The black line on each graph is the calculated norm that is to be expected by a uniform warming of ocean basins.

The red colored graph line on each graph is the pattern which actual measurements have recorded (actual measurements in the CTD and PFL datasets of the WOD).

As you can see, there is a radical contrast.

It doesn't mean that the measurements are wrong, or that the abstract is wrong, instead, it tells us that we need to take measurements in the same way and for the same reasons we have chosen to use the Golden 23 Zones.

That is, we seek measurements that produce a balanced representation of the oceans as a whole.

For example, if we take all of our in situ water temperature and salinity measurements in the Arctic ocean area, we will have an unbalanced set of data from which to analyze ocean temperature thermodynamics of the entire world oceans.

The same will result if we take all of our measurements in the tropics.

Also, that same result can be expected for unbalanced combinations where our mix of measurements is focused too much on one area or the other.

IV. The Abstract Graphs

Fig. 4a
The abstract graphs are Fig. 4a through Fig. 4i.
Fig. 4b

Fig. 4c
These graphs show not only test patterns of both the measurement values and changes in those values (both should have the same pattern when the software is working properly), they also show what are a collection of patterns to be expected in a uniformly warming environment.

They show what the software module calculations would expect global warming of the surface to produce in the oceans.

Fig. 4a is ocean mass, Fig. 4b is thermosteric volume expected when a constant water mass is analyzed, Fig. 4c is Conservative Temperature, Fig. 4d is Absolute Salinity, Fig. 4e is sea level, Fig. 4f is GISS global temperature average anomaly since 1880 compared to sea level change during that same span of time, Fig. 4g is thermal expansion and contraction when a variable mass is used in the equation, Fig. 4h is expected ocean salinity, and Fig. 4i is expected ocean temperature.
Fig. 4d

Fig. 4e
V. The Clincher Test
Fig. 4f

Fig. 4g
When we look at Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b (actual measurement patterns compared to the expected patterns) we have to "go figure."
Fig. 4h

Fig. 4i
It is no secret at all that the oceans are not quiet back yard pools or stable bathtubs offering an easy place to take all the measurements we want to take.

The oceans are hard places to work in, and can be life threatening at about any time.

I have been across some of the feisty ones on a small wooden boat in winter time with only one other person to share the "adventure."

They are all the more dangerous if you are not constantly aware of what is around, under, and over you.

Plus what is coming at you, or might be coming at you, so one can't just do measurements our there without being prepared for danger and/or trouble.

Measurements out there do not come cheap or easily.

So, we need a way to analyze the data we have in a manner that can also tell us where and with what we need to update and to balance out our datasets.

VI. Making The Test Graphs

You will notice a similarity in the GISS surface temperature anomaly graph patterns (Fig. 1, Fig. 4f) when compared with other patterns.

That is because I use the GISS pattern to inform the others.

That is, the GISS represents warming increases caused by captured green house gases.

Some 93% of that finds its way into the oceans, so it is a sound hypothesis to consider that the oceans will warm accordingly.

Of course there are variations, exceptions, and differences, but it makes for a worthwhile pattern to look for in the abstract.

For example, Fig. 4f is composed of measurements taken from safe locations at weather stations and tide gauge stations around the world.

They have a similar pattern because one (GISS) causes the other (PSMSL), because warming melts the Cryosphere and the melt water is relocated into the oceans.

The values of sea level change match the pattern that values of atmospheric changes make.

The same is validly expected in the mass of the oceans.

The pattern of warming causes a pattern of sea level change which causes a similar pattern of ocean mass change.

There is a reasonably equal expectation with ocean water temperature (when considered as a whole) and salinity, in terms of an abstract test case.

VII. Conclusion

There are a lot of things to look at, ponder, and analyze with this test case scenario.

For example, do the in situ temperature and salinity graph lines in Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b tell us anything about our WOD dataset?

Like maybe in the 1960's, what with the red measurement line being above the expected location for the black graph line, and then dropping down below the black line, that deeper (colder) measurements became more technically possible ... or did northern measurements exceed southern measurements?

Or perhaps was there a lot of cold melt-water injected into the oceans to cause cooling (see Humble Oil-Qaeda)?

There are a lot of possibilities.

It can't all be discussed in one post, so stay tuned if you like.

The previous post in this series is here.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us? - 13

Fig. 1 A seismograph becomes a trend-o-graph
I. Background

About 7.5 years ago I penned Global Warming & Volcanic Eruptions.

Shortly following that (about a month later), I began a series on the issue.

This series has covered the subject over the several years since its inception (Is A New Age Of Pressure Upon Us?, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11, 12); however the last post in this series (#12) took place almost a year ago.

So, today we continue the discussion of this important, overlooked, but strongly ongoing issue (Fig. 1).

II. Not Much Mediocrity Mediacrity Has Changed

As the USGS reports, not much has changed, except perhaps that in the last few days
Fig. 2 More graphs here
earthquake coverage has inhabited the mass mediasphere.

As has been said, "All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance." Will Rogers

Which in whole or in part can lead to a particular world view as to what is important and what is not  ("The old newspaper adage, 'If it bleeds, it leads,' is as true today as it was a century ago." Peter Diamandis); thus, foreseeing an oncoming reality becomes less important than reacting to it once it has arrived, because the media disdains foresight as it clings to bleeding breaking news.

III. Some New Insights On Old Insights

This series has focused on the reality that there is more than meets the eye concerning the actual nature of the impacts of sea level change.

For example, there is more than merely impacts to coast lines and coast line maps, more than refugees having to move further inland, and more than the ongoing and upcoming retreat of world seaports (The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Fig. 3 Humble Oil-Qaeda
The impacts I am now talking about are the changes in pressures upon the Earth's crust.

Those impacts concern both a decrease in pressure in some areas, as well as an increase of pressure in other areas.

One reason for that type of change is that the great weight of ice sheets releases pressure from the land beneath them as they melt and flow into the ocean.

Their watery residue then creates pressure in various far away places where their melt water has relocated to.

Not only that, the loss of their gravity, which was once pulling water toward and upon them, frees that large quantity of water from being bound up against them (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

This phenomenon is not limited to the waters around Greenland and Antarctica (Proof of Concept - 3).

That once-gravity-trapped water will then flow away from its place to decrease pressure there, but to increase pressure elsewhere (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

"So what?" you may wonder.

IV. The Answer

The previous question is answered by "glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA)" as discussed in Mitrovica, et al., (2015), a PDF file.

The bidirectional up and down GIA causes torque, stress, and tension between crustal movement upwards and crustal movement downward.

Likewise, the speed-up and slow-down of the Earth's rotation, as a result of those changes in the Earth's shape, also cause additional torque, stress, and tension on the crust (ibid).

Those rotational speed changes cause changes in shape that engender a shape that is closer to a perfect globe, for awhile, then other speed changes make further changes to a shape that is closer to an imperfect globe shape.

Those contortions and changes force, in various degrees, a release of impediments to earthquakes and volcanism in some places, while impeding, in various degrees, earthquakes and volcanism in other areas.

V. Conclusion 

Remember that the 1750 Industrial Revolution began to inject greenhouse gases into the atmosphere long ago, which has increased climate and sea level change since then.

As the graphs in earlier posts of this series show, seismic and volcanic activity have also increased during this, the Anthropocene (Fig. 2).

The previous post in this series is here.

Who knew (Fig. 3)?

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques - 2

Fig. 1a
I. Background

I have been surprised by the outcome of using the TEOS-10 thermodynamics toolkit.

Fig. 1b
As regular readers know, for the longest time I calculated thermal expansion caused volume change as a percentage of sea level change.

Fig. 1c
That percentage was 5.1% calculated from actual sea level change minus the ghost water percentage.

Even that 5.1% was lower than current establishment science calculates, which was said to be more than sea level change caused by the melting of the Cryosphere.

II. Along Comes TEOS-10

Looking for possibly a more accurate way to calculate the percentages that thermal expansion and contraction (thermosteric) contribute to sea level change, I ran across the TEOS-10 Toolkit (TEOS-10 Website).

I made various experimental attempts to calculate thermal expansion values with the TEOS-10 toolkit, partnering it up with the traditional formula for such calculations and WOD, PSMSL, and GISS data.

Fig. 2a
Then I came across a bombshell paper which narrowed down the remaining techniques to two.
Fig. 2b

That bombshell paper pointed out the following:
Fig. 2c
"A common practice in sea level research is to analyze separately the variability of the steric and mass components of sea level. However, there are conceptual and practical issues that have sometimes been misinterpreted, leading to erroneous and contradictory conclusions on regional sea level variability. The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant."
(On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques, quoting from JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: OCEANS, VOL. 118, 953–963, doi:10.1002/jgrc.20060, by Gabriel Jordà and Damià Gomis, 2013; @p. 953, 954, emphasis added). That certainly can change things.

III. Along Comes New Graphs

And so, today's graphs are presented to show the stark difference between the results of those two techniques mentioned in the paper.

Fig. 3a
The graphs are numbered in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 groups, each group having an 'a', a 'b', and a 'c' member graph.

Fig. 3b
The 'a' member of each graph group is in compliance with the paper quoted above, which sternly points out:
"The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component [thermosteric] does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant." (ibid, emphasis added).
Fig. 3c

In other words, one must calculate the ocean volume from the 1st year a calculation of sea level change commences.

Then one must use that same quantity throughout all the other years of that span of time being calculated and graphed.

That is, the increasing and decreasing sea levels (ocean mass and volume changes) over a span of time are not to be used if one seeks to present an accurate estimation / calculation of thermosteric volume change over that span of time.

IV. The Tide Gauge Station Selections

In these graphs I present the two techniques using three lists of tide gauge stations: Fig. 1 group) 491 stations used by Church & White (2011), Fig. 2 group) all stations (1,484), and Fig. 3 group) "the Golden 23".

The 'a' member in each of those three groups shows the calculation mandated by the paper quoted in Section II.

As you can see, the thermal expansion calculations show significantly less sea level change caused by thermosteric dynamics than the old Dredd Blog 5.1% method shows.

Yikes !

Can "thermal expansion as the main cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" be that much of a myth?

V. How I Process The Data

I won't go through the arduous task of building a billion rows of SQL based data after downloading that data from PSMSL, WOD, and GISSTEMP.

I won't go through the software architectural work of designing software modules to analyze that data.

Today, let's just look at how the completed modules handle that data, beginning with TEOS-10 functions.

First we acquire in situ (at a specific latitude, longitude location) temperature along with in situ salinity ("practical salinity") readings from a specific ocean depth at that location.

Let's call them 'T' (temperature) 'SP' (practical salinity) and 'Z' (a depth or 'height' in TEOS parlance).

First we convert those in situ values into TEOS values:

1) Z into P (pressure) using the TEOS function P = "gsw_p_from_z(double z, double lat)";

2) SA using  SA = "gsw_sa_from_sp(double sp, double p, double lon, double lat)";

3) T into "conservative temperature" CT = "gsw_ct_from_t(double sa, double t, double p)";

Now, we can calculate the all important "thermal expansion coefficient"
(symbol 'β') β = "gsw_alpha(double sa, double ct, double p)".

Last but not least, we use a traditional formula for calculating thermal expansion / contraction volume change: V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT) as I noted early on in the struggle:
The one I settled on is: V1 = V0(1 + β ΔT), where: V1 means new volume, V0 means original volume, β means temperature coefficient, and ΔT means change in temperature (T1 - T0), which is another way of "saying" dV = V0 β (t1 - t0), a formula in widespread use (Engineering Toolbox, cf here).
(On Thermal Expansion & Thermal Contraction - 18). When calculating a long span of years, the "ΔT" becomes the previous years temperature minus the current year's temperature (change in temperature), or vice versa depending on the direction (backwards in time, or forward in time) in which you are calculating.

VI. Discussion Of The Graphs

The 'a' member of each graph group features what happens when the mass-volume (V0) remains constant as conservative temperature (CT), absolute salinity (SA), and pressure change over time.

The 'b' member graphs the temperature and salinity changes.

The 'c' member shows what happens when the volume (V0) changes along with the temperature and salinity.

The difference in the thermal expansion / contraction is dramatic between the two usages (constant volume, variable volume).

VII. Conclusion

There is more work to do to figure out just how the oceanographers calculate thermosteric volume.

Any suggestions?

The previous post in this series is here.

Friday, September 15, 2017

On Thermal Expansion &Thermal Contraction - 23

Fig. 1a Constant Ocean Mass & Volume
I. I Repeat Myself

I reread Church, White (2011) (PDF) in light of the post concerning the inconsistent calculations of thermosteric sea level change (thermal expansion / contraction).

Like others who were mystified by "the European problem" they flounder, because they do not mention, let alone understand, the gravity of ice sheets (The Gravity of Sea Level Change, 2, 3, 4).

Therefore, neither do they comprehend the Dredd Blog discussions of the phenomenon of ghost water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

Go figure (these guys still haven't discovered gravity: On the rate and causes of twentieth century sea-level rise, PDF).

II. But I Fulfill (Most of) My Promises

Fig. 1b Variable Ocean Mass & Volume
Today I want to fulfill the promise I made in a recent post:
"In future posts I will use the same PSMSL tide gauge stations that the authors in journal papers used in their papers, in order to further expand upon the concepts addressed in today's post."
(On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques). In the paper Church, White (2011) they used 491 PSMSL tide gauge station data ("We use ... data ... from ... PSMSL" p. 587), so, that seems like a tall order.

Not to worry, Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b are graphs using the same 491 PSMSL tide gauge stations that they used, excluding "metric" data (I don't use the "Metric" data, as recommended by PSMSL here).

III. The Same Old Story Emerges

Their selection of PSMSL data does nothing to change the reality that if you do not discuss ice sheet gravity dynamics, you don't get it (see Mitrovica video below).

The graphs I provided here (where I made, and today fulfilled, a promise) shout out the same message as today's graphs do (Fig. 1a, Fig. 1b).

That message is the message shouted out for all that consider the four corners of the scenario, which is to say that the assertion indicating "thermal expansion is the main cause of sea level rise in the 19th and 20th centuries" is not supported by robust analysis (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).

IV. Conclusion

According to Dr. Mitrovica, a lot of the fault for the problem discussed in this series is the obsession with the mythical bathtub model (The Bathtub Model Doesn't Hold Water, 2, 3, 4).

The previous post in this series is here.

Professor Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University:

Thursday, September 14, 2017

On The More Robust Sea Level Computation Techniques

Measurements of change
I. Background

The scientific literature contains some debate. or at least different methodologies, concerning the proper way to calculate the quantity of thermal expansion and contraction of ocean water.

Which means that you can expect, based on the same evidence, different statements about the portion of sea level rise or fall that is considered to be thermosteric (thermal expansion / contraction) in nature, compared to what is considered to be eustatic in nature (scientific literature reflects that unwanted reality).

II. Some Clarification

Thermosteric warming (thermal expansion) does not add atoms to the ocean water, but it does move the atoms further apart from one another, so, the ocean volume increases (even though the number of atoms remains the same).

Thermosteric cooling (thermal contraction) draws the atoms closer together, so, the ocean volume decreases (even though the number of atoms remains the same).

Mass-volume (eustatic) increase  is a different dynamic, because it is a function of adding more atoms to the ocean water (via ice berg calving, or by melt water from ice sheets or glaciers on land flowing into the ocean).

Mass-volume (eustatic) decrease is caused, among other things, by evaporation of ocean water into the atmosphere, and the eventual placement of that water on land by rain.

III. Some Variations In Values

I won't belabor the issue of variation of analysis of steric vs eustatic in the published literature (because there is a lot of it), but I will quote from two papers which are at odds as to "who dunnit" (steric man or eustatic man):
"We examine the relationship between 50-year-long records of global sea level (GSL) calculated from 1023 tide gauge stations and global ocean heat
Fig. 1a All Zones, Constant Volume
content (GOHC), glacier and ice sheet melting. The lack of consistent correlation between changes in GOHC and GSL during the period 1955–2003 argues against GOHC being the dominant factor in GSL as is often thought.
[IOW eustatic man dunnit] We provide clear evidence of the substantial and increasing role in GSL from the eustatic component (47%) compared with the contribution from increasing heat content (25%), suggesting that the primary role is being played by the melting glaciers and ice sheets. There remains about 1/4 of GSL rise unaccounted for by the best estimates of both eustatic and thermosteric effects [BTW that is the ghost water constant].  This fraction also exhibits large variability that is not readily associated with known causes of sea level variability. The most likely explanation of this unknown fraction is underestimated melting, climate-driven changes in terrestrial storage components, and decadal timescale variability in global water cycle. This argues for a concerted effort to quantify changes in these reservoirs" (JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, D08105, doi:10.1029/2007JD009208, 2008, PDF).
"Over the years 2002–2014, we find a global mean steric trend of 1.38 ± 0.16 mm/y, compared with a total trend of 2.74 ± 0.58 mm/y [steric man dunnit]. This is
Fig. 1b G23 Zones, Constant Volume
significantly larger than steric trends derived from in situ temperature/salinity profiles and models which range from 0.66 ± 0.2 to 0.94 ± 0.1 mm/y. Mass contributions from ice sheets and glaciers (1.37 ± 0.09 mm/y, accelerating with 0.03 ± 0.02 mm/y2) are offset by a negative hydrological component (−0.29 ± 0.26 mm/y). The combined mass rate (1.08 ± 0.3 mm/y) is smaller than previous GRACE estimates (up to 2 mm/y), but it is consistent with the sum of individual contributions (ice sheets, glaciers, and hydrology) found in literature
" (Revisiting the contemporary sea-level budget on global and regional scales, 2015, PDF).
The ongoing exercise to unify the research into which factors contribute most to ocean volume change (steric or eustatic), must be bolstered with unification of both research and analysis.

One effort in that direction is the TEOS-10 toolkit, which I use.

But, the major factor in unification will be to unify the conceptual framework IMO.

IV. Some Procedural Inconsistencies

One paper expands upon the proper techniques and procedures involved in steric vs eustatic analysis:
"A common practice in sea level research is to analyze separately the variability of the steric and mass components of sea level. However, there are conceptual and practical issues that have sometimes been misinterpreted, leading to erroneous and contradictory conclusions on regional sea level variability. The crucial point to be noted is that the steric component does not account for volume changes but does for volume changes per mass unit (i.e., density changes). This indicates that the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant."
(JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: OCEANS, VOL. 118, 953–963, doi:10.1002/jgrc.20060, by Gabriel Jordà and Damià Gomis, 2013; @p. 953, 954, emphasis added). One way to remember mass volume compared to steric / spatial volume is that mass volume is how many atoms the water column contains, but steric / spatial volume refers to how far apart from one another those atoms are.

V. A Dredd Blog Solution

In light of ("the steric component only represents actual volume changes when the mass of the considered water body remains constant") I decided to modify the software module to calculate both situations.
Fig. 2a All Zones, Variable Volume

That is, to calculate based on both the mass remaining constant, as well as the mass quantity changing.

(Of course the mass is constantly changing in the real world, but I digress.)

I decided to do both the constant scenario and the variable scenario because it would be helpful for detecting situations where presentations are at odds as a result of the use of these  two different techniques as if they were the same.

Fig. 2b G23 Zones, Variable Volume
Notice Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b, which graph the situations in both the Golden 23 as well as All Zones as to the situation where the mass remains constant.

They both use the constant mass volume technique.

Then compare those two with Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b, which use the variable mass volume technique to graph those situations in both the Golden 23 as well as All Zones.

VI. Conclusion

The situation where the mass remains constant generates less thermal expansion and contraction than the variable mass situation does.

The constant mass is more accurate, in terms of calculating actual thermosteric volume change, than the variable volume scenario is.

That is because using the variable volume assumes a volume amount that has been increased or decreased because of an increase or decrease in the total amount of water in the oceans, rather than being based only on the temperature and salinity changes.

Thermosteric change can only be isolated by using a fixed quantity of water that experiences changing water temperatures.

Using the varying mass-volume quantity each year will mix steric with eustatic to produce a conflated thermal expansion analysis.

It is, in that respect, the same as using a combination of zones that are biased toward either sea level fall or sea level rise.

One must choose both carefully with an unswerving goal of having a balanced input of data.

In future posts I will use the same PSMSL tide gauge stations that the authors in journal papers used in their papers, in order to further expand upon the concepts addressed in today's post.

The next post in this series is here.

Monday, September 11, 2017

On Thermal Expansion &Thermal Contraction - 22

Worldwide Tide Gauge Station Records
I. Updates

The PSMSL recently updated their down-loadable datasets (both monthly and annual datasets were offered), so I updated my SQL database to include those new tide gauge station records.
Fig. 1a

At the same time I adjusted the date bench-mark for the volume of the oceans to 2010 from 2000, and calibrated my relevant software modules to:
mean ocean depth: 3682.2 m

area: 361.841 x 106 km2

volume: 1.332370930 x 109 km3
The values are based on this paper: “The Volume of Earth's Ocean” (Oceanography, vol. 23, no. 2, 2010, pp. 112–114; PDF version).

Fig. 1b
I also ran across a definition of "thermal expansion", a term we see in sea level related text around the Internet:
"The 'thermosteric component of sea level change' represents the change of sea level due to warming or cooling of a column of sea water.

Warming of a sea water column results in higher sea level
cooling of a sea water column results in lower sea level."
(Definition of Thermosteric, Page 3, PDF). That was refreshing because we very rarely come across the mention of "oh by the way, when that warmed water cools it shrinks").

We have discussed that in this series a time or two (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).

II. Dredd Blog Content

I also ran across a bit of information which I have not really concerned myself with to tell you the truth:
"Authors have typically achieved higher levels of education than the average reading level and tend to write at the same reading level as other authors in their niche. So where does that leave the actual reader?

According to many reports (including the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics’ 1992 Adult Literacy survey), the average reading level is the 7th or 8th grade. Combine that with reports of increasingly low-attention spans of Internet users who require even milder language and you’re looking at a reading level of the 6th or 7th grade."
(EzineArticles Asks: What Reading Level Should You Target?, cf. What Grade Level Are You Writing For?).

I just write it and Dredd Blog readers read it.

I have full confidence that if regular readers (who are quite savvy) want clarification on any issue, they know how to get it (including "what the heck did you mean by that Dredd?").

II. Using The Updates

What is important in the context of thermal expansion/contraction (thermosteric volume change) is the original volume of the ocean at the beginning of the calculation sequence.

In this context, that date is 1880.

I conformed all the data (GISS, PSMSL, and WOD) to the year 1880 as the beginning date.

Since PSMSL and GISS have in situ measurements for that year, but WOD does not, I had to calculate the values, then project them into the past.

I discussed that previously (The World According To Anomalies - 2).

That exercise must be applied to generate the ocean mass-volume in 1880 as well.

To do that I first isolated the mass-volume value described in the paper linked-to in Section I. above (1.332370930 x 109 km3), together with the year the mass-volume value was calculated (2010).

Next, I isolated the global mean sea level in that year, as measured by "the PSMSL golden 23 tide gauge stations."

With those values in hand it was easy to calculate backwards from 2010.

If the mean sea level fell or rose in any year I calculated the percentage of change in the PSMSL sea level, then adjusted the ocean mass-volume up or down based on the sea level change percent (5% drop in sea level = 5% drop in ocean mass-volume; 7% increase in sea level = 7% increase in mass-volume).

I proceeded until I (the software module) reached the year 1880, at which time I saved the value and used it for TEOS thermal expansion calculations going forward (Golden 23 Zones Meet TEOS-10).

The same technique is used to calculate historical ocean temperatures back to 1880, except GISS temperatures are used as the guide instead of PSMSL values.

Instead, I use the percent of GISS temperature value changes, then apply 93% of that GISS change to the WOD values.

The WOD values for CTD and PFL datasets are robust beginning circa 1967, so I start with the GISS surface temperature changes, and use 93% of that change.

That is because the current thinking is that about 93% of the heat from global warming ends up in the oceans.

III. Graphs Generated From The Updates

There isn't much change in the graphs generated after implementing the updates.

You can compare Fig. 1a and Fig. 1b with graphs generated prior to these changes (see The World According To Anomalies - 2, at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

However, there is a lot of difference between these recent thermal expansion/contraction (thermosteric) graphs and older ones, when I first wrestled with learning to use TEOS-10 and earlier formulas.

IV. Conclusion

I have a handle on it now, at least as reasonable a handle as the established scientific community has.

So, relax and don't expect changes in the way that is calculated, or in the results (unless readers point out an error in that process).

PS. Don't forget the ghost water (The Ghost-Water Constant, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

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

Saturday, September 9, 2017

The World According To Anomalies - 2

Fig. 1 Cat-5,5, and 2 hurricanes
I. Introduction

This series gets into the nature of anomalies (The World According To Anomalies).

We now live in an anomalous world (e.g. The Records Irma Has Broken).

So, a focus on that aspect of the life of our civilization is more likely to engender an understanding of where we are and where we need to make changes (You Are Here).

II. Background

In an earlier post I discussed the importance of understanding the concept of an anomaly so as to be able to understand the concept of a damaged climate system (The Damaged Global Climate System - 7).

Fig. 2
In our scientific form of analysis we determine what is anomalous and what is not anomalous by measurements applied in a context that has a logical nexus to those measurements (The World According To Measurements - 8).

Those who seek to describe our world, in terms of measurements, are challenged when needed measurements do not go back far enough in time or broadly enough in a particular realm.

Fig. 3
Sometimes the measurements are not available because the taking of measurements can involve the most difficult of endeavors.

For example, if we ask "what is the temperature of the ocean at 1,562 meters below the Totten Glacier Ice Shelf at latitude x, longitude y", we might encounter a situation where no one has yet been able to ascertain that temperature at that location (Studies offer glimpse).

Robust measurements, even at the ice shelf surface itself, are sometimes challenging (Antarctica 2.0, 2).

As our inclination and ability to take measurements improve, our understanding of our world has at least a chance to improve too.

III. Anomalies R Us

One key potential improvement is the ability to detect anomalies.

For example, Fig. 1 shows three hurricanes that are or were active recently.

How do we discern which one or ones, if any, are or were anomalous?

The answer is: robust record keeping.

Two of those hurricanes contribute to the anomalous records database, in that Irma was anomalous in terms of duration of Cat-5 status.

Additionally, Jose and Irma were both Cat-4 at the same time in the Atlantic, another anomalous condition.

If we do not keep records of such anomalies, or deny those realities, then we become ignorant of the environment around us.

That eventuality has the potential to be dangerous to our well being as a civilization.

IV. Ocean Temperatures At Great Depths

We do not have robust historical records of the temperatures of the world oceans at great depths.

One reason is that our technological abilities to do even part of that are of recent vintage:
While it may sound easy to measure the oceans, it is actually quite challenging. The oceans are huge (and deep) and difficult to access. The need is for enough measurement locations at enough depths and with enough precision to get an accurate temperature.

In recent years, we have relied upon a system of automated ocean measurement devices called the Argo fleet. These devices are scattered across the globe and they autonomously rise and sink (down to 2,000 meters) and record temperatures and salinity during their travels. Because of the Argo fleet, we know a lot more about our oceans, and this new knowledge helps us ask better questions. But the fleet could be made even better. They do not measure the bottom half of the ocean (below 2,000m depth) and they do not fully cover regions near or under ice or near shores.
(Guardian). Unfortunately, ARGO and earlier methods of making records only go back so far and so deep.

V. The Estimations

One technique I use to fill in those historical gaps is to use related records that go back much further.

I mean records from which we can deduce a workable estimation of what the ocean temperatures and volume were likely to have been in a given year.

These estimations must be made from older records which have a nexus to the missing records.

I described one such process (which also applies in today's post) in another recent post (see Section VI. here).

VI. The Graphs

The graph at Fig. 2 shows one application of this technique.

The top two panels in that four panel depiction are graphs of the actual measurement data for sea level change (PSMSL tide gauge station records) and for atmospheric temperature change (GISSTEMP weather station records).

The bottom two panels show the estimations of the oceans' thermosteric volume changes ("The 'thermosteric component of sea level change' represents the change of sea level due to warming or cooling of a column of sea water. Warming of a sea water column results in higher sea level and cooling of a sea water column results in lower sea level." see Page 3 in this PDF) and mass-volume changes based upon extrapolations of the actual sea level and actual temperature measurements.

The graph at Fig. 3 shows the in situ ocean temperature estimations, as well as the TEOS based computations related to those in situ estimations.

VII. Conclusion

Denying the anomalous weather produced by the damaged climate system around us is exactly what Oil-Qaeda (Humble Oil-Qaeda) wants us to believe in response to its decades-long propaganda campaign (The Authoritarianism of Climate Change).

The previous post in this series is here.

Friday, September 8, 2017

The World According To Measurements - 8

Fig. 1 Are your measurements anomalous?
I. Introduction

One of the curses these days could be "may all of your measurements be anomalous" (The Damaged Global Climate System - 7).

The hurricanes Harvey, Jose and Irma are of the anomalous ilk, i.e., not part of an undamaged global climate system (ibid).

Where there are no measurements there are no anomalies, but neither are there any facts upon which to form an inkling of reality.

The measurements we collect and record are our only way of fashioning and forging the pillars, posts, and beams of our science reality.

II. From Measurements To Graphs

Today, I wanted to illustrate how our world depends on measurements, especially scientific climate / weather measurements, so as to form our coherent hypotheses, theories
Fig. 2a
and concepts of natural law (such as the law of gravity).

The graphs in today's post  are constructed from measurements taken the world over during a span of years exceeding a century, then stored in the WOD, PSMSL, GISS, and other datasets.

Those graphs compose a pair of contrasting views; a contrast that is formed by the use of 99.99% of PSMSL tide gauge records to form one graph, together with the use of a smaller set of only twenty three zones of PSMSL tide gauge records to form the other graph in the pair.

Fig. 2b
The smaller set of the pair is called the "Golden Twenty Three" (g23), which is a subset of the total tide gauge station records used in the full set.

The g23 are 23 PSMSL tide gauge stations that were thoughtfully and fairly selected by learned scientists.

They sought a fair representation of PSMSL tide gauge stations with which to form a robust view of global sea level characteristics over a long span of time.

Those twenty three representatives were selected because they work well to give a balanced (Fig. 1) set of measurements for pondering global sea level change (Golden 23 Zones Revisited).

I have expanded just a bit upon the g23 to make them the 23 WOD Zones.

I use all tide gauge stations in any zone which contains at least one of the golden twenty three individual tide gauge stations.

Thus, the g23 is composed of 25 individual tide gauge stations located in only 23 individual WOD zones (two of those zones have an additional tide gauge station).

The larger set that contrasts with the g23 is composed of 99.99% of all PSMSL tide gauge stations.

There are 1,486 total tide gauge stations in the database.

Four stations are excluded (#1975 "SANTANA", #1963 "IQUIQUE", #571 "TALCAHUANO", and #436 "FAMAGUSTA") because they are essentially defective or contain only one year of data (so the total stations used to form the larger set is 1,482 stations out of 1,486 total tide gauge stations).

Thus, one set of the pair has 25 stations, the other set in the pair has 1,482 stations.

III. The Software Tools

The software module that produces these graphs (by querying various SQL database
Fig. 3a
tables: WOD, PSMSL, GISS, and TEOS) uses the same process and number of years (1880-2016) to produce the data for the graph pairs.

You will notice a difference in the two a-b graph pairs, because the two pairs are based on two data (measurement) scenarios.

The graph pairs show that our world view is based on our measurement view, i.e., the measurements we take will determine what we think of the world we are inhabiting (You Are Here).

Fig. 3b
Using all PSMSL tide gauge stations, as a means of determining global sea level, can damage a sound world view with a northern hemisphere bias (which results in lower global sea level averages).

That is because tide gauges in the northern hemisphere are located such that they record an inordinate number of measurements from areas where sea level is falling  than those in the southern hemisphere do (Proof of Concept , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

IV. The Rationale

The g23 group is the result of an attempt to even out the hemispheres so as to give a more
Fig. 4a
balanced world view of sea level dynamics (The Gravity of Sea Level Change).

The careful selection process took into consideration whether the tide gauge stations are located in areas where land is subsiding or uplifting, and similar reasons.

The goal of selecting the cream of the crop locations for collecting measurements is to produce better scientific data so as to craft and form a better scientific result.

As an example, it would not matter how much data one had from a plethora of tide gauge stations located near Juneau, Alaska, combined with data from a plethora of tide gauge stations near Stockholm, Sweden.

Fig. 4b
That is because one would conclude that "sea level all around the globe is falling" just because it is falling in those areas.

Representative data from a balanced number of locations is very necessary in order to give a true picture of sea level change.

All of that reasoning is explained in the video at the bottom of this post.

V. Dates Of The Data

The subjects of the data are sea level change, atmospheric temperature change, ocean water temperature change, and ocean volume change caused by both water temperature and the addition of mass to the ocean due to cryosphere melting.

Fig. 5a
The data in my SQL database contains PSMSL (sea level) data going back to 1807, GISS (atmospheric temperature) data going back to 1880, but the WOD data only goes back to 1967.

So, I opted to begin at the year 1880, which means that I had to generate estimated WOD ocean water temperatures from 1967 back to 1880.

To do that I used, as a guide, the GISS surface temperatures (1880-2016) along with the WOD ocean temperature, salinity, depth and pressure data from 1967 through 2016 (~half a century).

Fig. 5b
I also had to generate estimated ocean mass/volume back to 1880, which began with the latest ocean volume calculations of oceanographers circa the year 2000.

I did that by paralleling the PSMSL changes (in terms of percent of decrease and increase) in sea level with decrease and increase of ocean mass (if the tide gauge recorded average sea level increased by x% or decreased by y%, I increased the mass / volume by that x% or decreased it by that y%).

Once I accomplished those calculations, I could then do the TEOS calculations as to thermal expansion (thermosteric ocean volume change).

So, as a result the graphs show both thermosteric and mass volume change.

VI. Discussion of the Graphs

Remember that the object of this post is to show that not only is measurement data important, but where the data comes from is also important (for example, if we want to know how ocean temperature has changed over time, we must measure all the way down, not just at the surface).

Let's discuss the graphs.

The graph pair at Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b show the difference between mass volume change (not thermosteric) using 1,482 stations, and for contrast also using the g23.

As you can see, there is not much difference, and the trend is identical (the measurements are the facts, but the trend is the truth).

The graph pair at Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b (g23) show the TEOS concept of conservative temperature and absolute salinity as well as a comparison of thermal expansion / contraction (thermosteric volume change) with mass volume change (ice melt-water caused volume increase).

The graph pair at Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b (g23) show the thermosteric volume change close up.

Again, you will notice that there are difference between the g23 graph and the other graph, but the measurements and calculations are the facts, the trend is the truth.

The graph pair at Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b (g23) show in situ values, including GISS surface temperature anomaly, WOD ocean temperature and salinity, as well as PSMSL sea level change since 1880.

VII. Conclusion

From now on, I am going to use the g23 data when I discuss global sea level change.

I can still use any other tide gauge station data when targeting specific locations.

The previous post in this series is here.