|Fig. 1 WOD Zone map|
Water temperature and heat content in bodies of water can be mentioned or used by writers in a manner that does not connote the actual dynamics taking place.
In other words, misconceptions can be unintentionally created, whether wanted or not.
So, as regular readers know, I have been trying to clarify some of the greater and more widespread misconceptions that have been generated by research practices that only skim the surface.
In that pursuit, I recently reprocessed my partial copy (CTD & PFL datasets) of the World Ocean Database (WOD) again, in order to make it even more useful.
The exercise I went through was to convert tables in Appendix 11 in the WOD Manual (pages 132 - 137; PDF pages 142 - 148; WOD Manual PDF Link) into SQL tables which I could then access from various software modules.
The manual explains that appendix as follows:
APPENDIX 11. ACCEPTABLE RANGES OF OBSERVED VARIABLES AS A FUNCTION OF DEPTH, BY BASIN(ibid). As you can see, the different ocean areas have different maximum and minimum values per se, and further, those maximum and minimum values change with depth.
The range values provided has range values for temperature, salinity, oxygen, phosphate, silicate, nitrate, pH, chlorophyll, and alkalinity. The range values in
the tables are used to help identify the most obvious questionable values for these variables. Please note that ranges are given on 33 standard levels (+ one for depths deeper than 5500 m). All standard depths in between given standard depths have the same values as the nearest standard depth shown (for example, 90m standard depth uses 100m range values. If a standard depth is equidistance between two shown standard depths, the ranges values will be the same as the shallower shown standard depth (i.e. 5 m range values will be the same as 0 m shown values, not 10 m shown values).
Fig. 2 World Ocean Areas
In my work, I only use temperature, salinity, and sea pressure values from the WOD (excluding "oxygen, phosphate, silicate, nitrate, pH, chlorophyll, and alkalinity" values).
That is not absolutely true, because water also contracts (shrinks) when heated, depending on the temperature of the water at the time the heat is applied (ibid).
More importantly, water also contracts (shrinks) when heat leaves that water (again depending on temperature of the water at the time the heat is removed).
III. Application of the Tables
Prior to having those tables in an SQL table, the only way I had to analyze the validity of measurements of temperature and salinity was to reject measurements which the general error flags offered.
If the data package had any error condition other than zero (no errors) I rejected the measurements outright.
Now, I can use measurements regardless of useless errors ("the scientist is ugly") by seeing if the measurement is within the maximum and minimum parameters of the ocean area where the measurements were taken.
In addition to that, I can conform the measurement to the maximum or minimum.
If it is too high I can modify it to the maximum, or if it is too low of a value, I can modify it to the minimum, and thereby preserve some of the valuable measurement data that way.
The zone map at Fig. 1 can lead one to think "this will be simple because the zones all look like similar square thingys."
So, I reprocessed all of the nearly one billion measurements, applying the maximum and minimum value constraints on the temperature and salinity values if needed.
Interestingly, the PFL datasets (produced by ARGO submarine-like machines) were remarkably accurate, and the CTD measurements were not bad either (overall, less than 1% needed modification to conform to the Appendix 11 restrictions).
V. The World According To Measurements
Another concern I had was with the TEOS-10 toolbox which I have begun to use (Golden 23 Zones Meet TEOS-10).
Some may think that because that toolbox conforms measurements to well studied conclusions, the measurements are being ignored.
So, the module I wrote uses all PSMSL tide gauge station records, and all WOD zone records (not limited to the "golden 23"), and keeps track of the in situ measurements separate from the TEOS calculated values.
Compare the in situ measurement graph for temperature (Fig. 7) with the TEOS-10 toolbox generated "conservative temperature" (Fig. 4) and notice that they have no major discernible differences.
But the Absolute Salinity graph (Fig. 8) compared with the in situ measurements of salinity (Fig. 5) does reveal discernible differences.
That is no surprise in the sense that the previous 40 years of measuring salinity in ocean water used a less reliable technique (TEOS-10 Home).
VI. The Other Graphs
The graphs, today, that bear most upon my argument against the "thermal expansion is the main cause of sea level rise for the past 100 years," are Fig. 3, Fig. 6, and Fig. 9.
The calculation of thermosteric ocean volume change (Fig. 9) compared with tide gauge records of sea level change (Fig. 6) are at odds with the thermal expansion hypothesis.
Putting them all on one 4-panel graph (Fig. 3) further supports the notion that the thermal expansion hypothesis is at odds with the world of measurements.
The graphs show that. during the same 1967-2016 time frame. sea level was rising as thermosteric volume fell.
The Larson C ice-shelf calving is closer to the truth than the thermal expansion hypothesis is.
That is, the Greenland, Antarctic, and other ice concentrations in the Cryosphere are and have been the single greatest source of sea level change from day one of climate change caused by global warming.
"The ice is melting, the ice is melting."
The previous post in this series is here.