# Ocean Cover and Hypsometry

What percent of the Earth is ocean? We can figure that out by continuing from here. Run:

``````> awk '\$3>0{print 0" "\$4}\$3<=0{print 1" "\$4}' i.csv > x.csv
> awk '{T[\$1]+=\$2;S+=\$2}END{print T[0]/S" "T[1]/S}' x.csv

0.290505 0.709495``````

The answer is 70.95%.

We can also generate a hypsometric curve:

``````> cat i.csv | awk '{print \$3" "\$4}' | sort -rn > hypso.raw
> awk '{T[\$1]+=\$2;S+=\$2}END{for (i in T){print i" "T[i]}}' hypso.raw | sort -rn -k 1.1 > hypso.dat
> awk '{N+=\$2;printf "%d %30.28f\n",\$1,N/510065728777854.5264}' hypso.dat > hypso.csv``````

To plot this curve, create an empty file called hypso.plot and paste text below:

``````set term png size 740,370
unset key
set xtics 0.1
set mxtics 2
set grid mxtics xtics ytics
set xrange [-0.01 to 1.01]
plot "hypso.csv" u 2:1 w filledcurves above y=0 fc "orange",\
"hypso.csv" u 2:1 w filledcurves below y=1 fc "blue"
``````

Make sure you have gnuplot.

``> sudo apt install gnuplot``

Generate an image with:

``> gnuplot hypso.plot > hypso.png``

You should get:

Enjoy đ -Zoe

https://phzoe.com

## 20 thoughts on “Ocean Cover and Hypsometry”

1. JaKo says:

If I may comment on the graph above — about 60% of Earth surface lies below 2km of its mean. If there is a correlation of the crust thickness and its corresponding heat transfer rate from the “hot” Earth core, here we could deduct a compelling scenario — most of Earth heat comes from below (the surface) — does anyone make any effort to measure this quite likely phenomenon?
You, Zoe, made a meticulous analysis of world’s surface drilling sites, yet there is no equivalent of under-sea data set! I bet my balls on this — there is much higher heat transfer down there, than one could ever imagine.
IMHO, that should be the target of funding, not this bogus GHG theory…

Liked by 1 person

1. Thank you very much, JaKo.
I don’t know if you’ve seen the thermocline curve. Many scientists believe it’s created top-down due to solar radiance and tidal sloshing. I believe that that is a huge mistake. I think it is created bottom-up due to fluid density dynamics PLUS solar radiance sprinkled on top. This is will not be easy to prove. I need help. I need a FLIR camera looking at a see-through container as water (heated from the bottom) inside it boils. My theory is that it gets hotter at the top first – even though the heat came from the bottom. If this is true, then the thermocline can be easily explained. The tidal sloshing thing is so stupid – tides slosh only the top few meters.

I’m honestly surprised academia is so incredibly stupid. Why is it my responsibility to do basic science?

Like

1. JaKo says:

Last thing first:
I’ve been among them in Dept. of Chemical Engineering of a 20k+ student university for a “generation” — they’re not stupid, they’re lazy and very “pragmatic” — do what works and generates funding and not what is important.

I think the thermocline could stay as is, we could even put aside the localized thermal vents. What I would suggest is to drill around the mean depth (~3.7km) to the same extra 50 and 100m and get that heat flux. If that turns out to be some double of that is on the dry land, you’re in business — you had proven that GHG theory is indeed a hoax. The temperature of the bottom (boundary) wouldn’t need to change more than a fraction of K — that would also be a proof of that if something is small it doesn’t mean it is not important…

Liked by 1 person

1. Thanks, JaKo.
The bottom of the ocean already has ~double the flux. That’s in the Davies & Davies (2013) paper referenced in my article The case of two different fluxes.

Yeah, I would like to show that geothermal is the only valid explanation. It’s the only one that makes sense. Too bad Fourier discounted it before measurements were even available. What an ass.

Like

2. JaKo says:

Hi Zoe,

What I hoped for was more than double;( also D&D paper was not very much forthcoming with actual data…

You have a wonderful 2020, in my age we usually wish each other a good health, while you may settle for happiness;-)

Cheers to New Year,

JaKo

Like

3. Aw thank you, JaKo. I’ll take both H’s.
You also have a wonderful year.
This is the year of “perfect” vision.

Like

2. CD Marshall says:

Last thing I explained to EM F was this point actually…

Surface ocean temps can be contributed to solar absorption but deep ocean warming is always geothermal.

The bottom of the ocean should be much colder but that wasn’t even my point anyway. I said, “deep ocean warming is always geothermal.” That is correct.

The oceans are warming according to the ARGOS Program slightly, but warming.

Just underwater volcanoes can warm the surrounding waters by 5 degrees. We have over a million volcanoes on the ocean floor and an estimated 1-3% are active any given time.

The average deep ocean temperature is 2C. However, hydrothermal vents are ejecting super heated water at around 350C and increasing the pH near the vent to 4.0.

Water temperature has densities, just like in the atmosphere warm air rises, meets colder air, cools it down via the lapse rate, and cold air drops. Oceans are being heated both from the top and the bottom, naturally warmer water at the bottom will rise, meeting much colder water and cooling. Any ice formed will also rise (density), so you have both warmer water and colder water circulating in all layers of the oceans. Wow that was so hard to figure out.

Liked by 1 person

1. Very good arguments, Chris.

Let us leave aside the hydrothermal vents and focus on the generic 2C provided by geothermal.

The sun penetrates on average the top 50 meters of ocean (global average).

The hottest part is at the top, and it gets cooler to 50 meters below. We know that vertical convection is now impossible because the warmer molecules at the top are less dense and so will not go downward.

Geothermal deniers will now claim that this heated layer than conducts to the bottom. But wait! Conducting to the bottom will COOL every layer, in real time. But we don’t observe that. The top is exactly what is predicted by insolation.

If there was NO geothermal, and let’s forget water phases and density dynamics for a second, what we should see at the EQUATOR is a thermal gradient from ~30C to 0 kelvin from top to about 200 meters deep.

I can’t stress enough that conduction and convection is not allowed further down than that 200 meters. As you know real time conduction would cool the hot end and heat the cold end, and result in water profile temperatures we DON’T observe.

This whole ocean temperature profile doesn’t make ANY sense without geothermal. Nor does ocean circulation patterns. There are two heat sources: internal geothermal and external solar.
The geothermal is crucial for base thermal support. It is not to be neglected.

And I also believe geothermal provides more than 2C … the heated water merely rises to a higher level immediately, leaving the colder below. I have yet to prove this conclusively tho to my complete statisfaction.

I hope this simple explanation came across mostly clear. I’m too exhausted at the moment.

Liked by 1 person

2. john12755 says:

This theory has the basis to cause a huge difference to genuine climate skeptics. Not so much to the vast majority of climate scientists and politicians, who are unlikely to admit they have been fools all along.

I have long dismissed the crap theory that 33 degrees of earths warmth comes from CO2. Where is that toasty warmth on a cloudless winter night?

Well done Zoe! Love your posts.

By the way, regarding your previous posts on the earthâs surfaceâsurely the fractal nature of the landâs surface increases the heat dissipation from the surface due to the geothermal source. Could be significant.

Liked by 1 person

1. Thanks.
Yes surface roughness I imagine would do that if geothermal gradient continued inside it.

/\ – mountain
/\ – if geothermal gradient was like this inside it then definitely
__ – if like this on the bottom then probably less would go out

This question is too hard. Not sure if we have such data all over the globe.

Like

3. Hi Zoe,
Have you managed to get use of a FLIR cam yet? If not, there’s plenty of videos online showing (no surprise) your thesis to be exactly correct. Top region heats first, container walls follow, air above rises faster than water below.

If you’re familiar with the windmap site – earth.nullschool.net – put two browsers side by each, one showing the Air Temp and the other showing Sea Surface Temp – notice that everywhere one checks, SST is always warmer than air temp, especially under ice covered ocean.

Liked by 1 person

1. Yes, thank you very much.
I was aware that youtube videos verify my claim, but I acted humbly until I can see it for myself.

Like

1. CD Marshall says:

I tried to get a geophysicist to visit your site and take a look at it. Pretty sure he declined my offer. Any PhD I’ve talked to has been a dead end on anything. I can’t even get one of them to admit the climate models are wrong. At best they will say, “not my area of expertise so I’m not going to comment on it…”

Liked by 1 person

1. Thank you for the effort, Chris.

I also tried to get geophysicists to comment, but I figured they didn’t because they are too cowardly and afraid of getting “cancelled” by the politically motivated climate cult.

So I started my own blog!

I am convinced that the climate scam is all based on geothermal denial. All.

I hope to inspire a new generation of critical thinkers.

Like

4. Kathy B says:

This is the right site for everyone who would like to find out about this topic. You realize so much its almost tough to argue with you (not that I actually would want toâŚHaHa).
You certainly put a fresh spin on a topic that’s
been discussed for many years. Excellent stuff, just excellent!

Liked by 1 person

5. Jarle says:

“100 million years ago the deep ocean had a temperature of 13-14 degrees” from Mark Denny’s book “How the oceans work” (2008). He does not attemt an explaination though. But one may understand why, as he in the next chapter goes on to tell the tale of AGW. (What has such a chapter to do in a book with that title anyway.. – a desperate need in the end of the book to affirm that he is not a so called climate denier? – after all, he had talked about temperature variability without mentioning CO2…)

Liked by 1 person

1. gbaikie says:

Global warming religion is partly caused by a misunderstanding of Venus.
Global warming has fathers, science doesn’t have fathers, science has theories which some author
gives theory which could be falsified if evidence disproves the theory.
Global warming religion is similar to the Cargo Cult. The Cargo Cult is primitive and isolated people had US
military use their island for military purposes. And the primitives though US military were wonderful/magical people
and they wanted them to return to their island with their airplanes. So they build stuff which vaguely looked airplanes and airports, hoping this would cause them to return. And it continues even though such people are far more aware of what is going on in the world.
My theory is that we a lot primitive people who are primitive because the worship the primitive and I call such people, Lefties. And the Lefties are blind to the wonderful and magical world that we are living in. And lefties imagine they are educated.

Liked by 1 person

2. That’s very interesting.
Thanks for reaffirming my suspicion.
When I first saw geothermal diagrams and started reading more about our internal Earth, I wondered why these authors couldn’t tie things together and see what I was seeing.

Like

1. Jarle says:

Do you think our internal earth can shift so as to once again warm the deep oceans to this temperature?

Liked by 1 person

1. That’s a really tough question.
In general, I think all internal layers are cooling, but …
If a lower layer punctures through a higher layer, then it will “spill” its heat upward.
If there’s external stress on the Earth, this will facilitate the puncture.

My personal opinion is this type of temperature is ancient history. But I could be wrong?

Like