Using the KNMI Climate Explorer I have rough ocean basin temperatures. My "Pacific" includes the most of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico which I may some day revise unless someone else does before I get the chance. If not I can rescale the basin which I may have to do anyway. This is more just a first stab than a final result so be patient.
For area, volume and percentages I have the following adapted table:
|Area+||% Ocean||Volume||% Ocean||Avg. Depth||Max Depth|
+ Boundaries between oceans vary depending upon agency, making comparisons with other published estimates difficult.
¤ Total surface area of Earth is 510,082,000 sq. km. The oceans cover ~70.9%.
* Southern Ocean area and volume calculated from ETOPO1 Bedrock version (includes Weddell and Ross seas without ice cover).
# Deepest ocean depth is in the Marianas Trench, measured at 10,911 meters. Maximum depths from ETOPO1 are not expected to exactly
match known measured maximum depths as ETOPO1 represents average depths over ~4 sq. km areas.
Eakins, B.W. and G.F. Sharman, Volumes of the World's Oceans from ETOPO1, NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, CO, 2010.
Scaling of the SST by basin to the NOAA NODC Vertically Averaged Temperature Anomaly is simply matching the linear regressions for the SST with the VAT for the overlap period from 1955 to 2012 then the scaled regression for the full 1870 to 2013 SST period can be used to approximate changes in 0-700 meter temperature and then 0-700 meter OHC.
Using surface temperature as a proxy of sorts for deep ocean temperature is far from perfect. Since most of the deep ocean warming is due to mixing which reduces surface temperature, there will be plenty of shorter term fluctuation that are out of phase. When the deeper ocean cools, that energy can be transferred to the surface somewhat bring the two in phase. So how much useful information may be gained is a total crap shoot, but it is a fun comparison.
|S. Atl||N. Atl||S. Pac||N. Pac||S. India||N. Indian||Average|
Instead of just scaling the OHC I thought it would be interesting to actually calculate the rough variation. There are a few issues with my mass calculations likely due to not including the shoreline slope since the kg appears to be a little less than a percent high compared to the Rosenthal et al. 2013 values, but pretty close for this initial run.
Starting with the Pacific, there is a lot more variability in the north which can be smoothed out, but without smoothing more that with a 5 year moving average it looks like this.
One of the major issues with the SST masks I used is the southern and Arctic oceans are not included. Including the polar oceans will require a more detailed masking which can also reduce the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico areas being in the Pacific region with the initial quick and dirty masking.
This ends part one of this series.