Nasa unveils map of salt levels in seas around the world which could transform our understanding of weather

By Daniel Bates
Updated: 14:54 EST, 26 September 2011

It is not so much salt of the Earth as all the salt in the sea.

Nasa has created the first ever map ever which shows salinity levels in every ocean on the planet – and it could prove key to understanding everything from global rainfall to ocean currents.

A satellite orbiting round Earth has been taking specialised radio measurements which have been collated together to form an easy to understand map of the globe.

This Nasa map shows salt levels in the world's oceans. In the image, areas in red and yellow have high salinity whilst those in blue and purple have low levels

This Nasa map shows salt levels in the world's oceans and could prove key to understanding everything from global rainfall to ocean currents. In the image, areas in red and yellow have high salinity whilst those in blue and purple have low levels

The data will give scientists a new level of understanding about climatic patterns such as how freshwater is moving around, which influences ocean circulation.

The measurements were collected by NASA’s Aquarius/SAC-D satellite, which was launched in June this year and is expected to reveal even more secrets in years to come.

On the map areas in red and yellow have high salinity whilst those in blue and purple have low levels. Black marks a gap in the data.

The differences in salt levels in large oceans like the Pacific and the Indian ocean are immediately apparent, but there are also other features like freshwater coming out of the Amazon.

Nasa also said there were interesting contrasts between ‘the arid, high-salinity Arabian Sea west of the Indian subcontinent, and the low-salinity Bay of Bengal to the east, which is dominated by the Ganges River and south Asia monsoon rains’.

High salt: The Dead Sea is one of the saltiest place on earth, with a reported salinity level of 33.7 per cent
Low levels: The Pacific ocean, such as here in Micronesia, has some of least salty waters

Salty: A woman bathes in the Dead Sea, which is has salinity levels of more than 30 per cent, while Micronesia in the Pacific, pictured right, was found to have much lower levels of salt by the study

The satellite works with three precise radio receivers which record microwave emissions from the water’s surface - these change depending on the electrical conductivity of the water, which is related to how much salt there is in it.

Previously researchers had to use instruments lowered from ships into the water, which was far more time consuming and limited the amount of data which could be collected.

Nasa will now be able to make monthly maps with far more accuracy.

Ocean salinity is measured in grams of salt per kilogram of sea water.

The range which is measured is currently only between 32 and 37 parts per thousand, but NASA hopes to get this down to 0.2 parts per thousand, a change of just one millilitre of salt in six litres of water.

Breakthrough: The map created by Nasa could prove key in understanding global rainfall and other weather events, as well as ocean currents and how freshwater moves around the planet

Breakthrough: The map created by Nasa could prove key in understanding global rainfall and other weather events, as well as ocean currents and how freshwater moves around the planet

‘Aquarius has exposed a pattern of ocean surface salinity that is rich in variability across a wide range of scales,’ said Aquarius team member Arnold Gordon, professor of oceanography at Columbia University in Palisades, New York.

‘This is a great moment in the history of oceanography. The first image raises many questions that oceanographers will be challenged to explain.’

Aquarius Principal Investigator Gary Lagerloef added: ‘Aquarius' salinity data are showing much higher quality than we expected to see this early in the mission.

‘Aquarius soon will allow scientists to explore the connections between global rainfall, ocean currents and climate variations.’

Comments (38)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

@Zeds: You said - 'As ever you don't actually have any scientific evidence, just an ad hominem attack on NASA.' then in your next post you say 'I didn't ask for scientific evidence, just for evidence.' Stop contradicting yourself when put on the spot, and don't be so lazy, try doing a search using NASA, Obama, Budget and Global Warming for a start. As the saying goes; they are none so blind as will not see. YOU are only interested in seeing that which supports your view, try taking an unbiased viewpoint for a change and it might enlighten you.

2
5
Click to rate

Re: ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 28/9/2011 10:38 ______ Hi Zeds. I knew if I put it that way you would have to take the bait. Now, would it not be better to take the base line as, say, 1761AD to 1790AD?. You know, before the wicked Industrial Revolution really kicked in. Oh, wait a minute, no-one has any idea what the 'global' average land air and sea surface temperature was for that 30 year period. btw As CO2 accounts for < 0.04% of the atmosphere would you like to explain how <0.04% of the outgoing IR that is intercepted by the CO2 can have the affects that the AGW 'scientists' claim?. I didn't realise that you believers in 'the science' also believed in miracles. nb I studied the realities of thermodynamics way beyond the age of 15 Zeds - you clearly didn't.

2
8
Click to rate

"And the 'long term trend' according to the AGW crowd is fixed between years 1961AD to 1990AD." - Martin, Lutterworth, Leicestershire, 28/9/2011 08:50 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Poor old Martin. Fails to understand it all once again. I'll give you a clue. Some Global Temperature records use this period as a baseline for comparison. Others don't. It's a pretty simple concept, but as you've proved time and time again, there's no science too straightforward for you to completely fail to grasp it, as you view it through the prism of your half-remembered physics class at the age of 15.

12
2
Click to rate

"How can I give the 'scientific evidence' of NASA's change of direction. It is down to the politics of the Obama government, not science. Why don't you go and do a bit of research on the redirection of science and NASA funding in the US on the web," - Mad Miner, London, 27/9/2011 18:25 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ I didn't ask for scientific evidence, just for evidence. This is priceless though. You say that there is such evidence, but you're not going to tell me what it is, and that I have to research it myself. I'm calling balderdash on this one. If you had any actual evidence at all, you'd trumpet it from the highest rooftops. As ever, you're just making it all up, and don't have a jot of evidence for your paranoid theories.

11
1
Click to rate

Re: ZedsDeadBed, Truro, UK, 27/9/2011 12:36: "Well of course it does. Just like the climate, that's why the long-term trend is important, to help eliminate the short term 'noise' of minor fluctuations......." ____________ And the 'long term trend' according to the AGW crowd is fixed between years 1961AD to 1990AD. So 30 years in the life of a planet with 6 bn years of oscillating 'trends' is significant? - pull the other one. btw the only very short term noise comes from ZDB, Dermot, John W, George of Durham and their ilk.

1
9
Click to rate

The bouyancy of salty sea water will be with me forever. You see, I couldn't swim and I was frightened of going into sea water anywhere around the UK - I would always sink into the shallows and be dragged out terrified. It was only when I was in my 30s and working in the Middle East that I just floated and floated in the sea around the Gulf and Arabian Sea - it was so salty, and subsequently very bouyant, that I floated and swam all the time.

0
1
Click to rate

But since "the science is settled" this will be of no use to anyone.

2
17
Click to rate

@Zeds: 'As ever you don't actually have any scientific evidence, just an ad hominem attack on NASA. Normally everything you say is paranoid nonsense with no actual evidence to back it up. ' --------- Wow, you really are losing the plot today. How can I give the 'scientific evidence' of NASA's change of direction. It is down to the politics of the Obama government, not science. Why don't you go and do a bit of research on the redirection of science and NASA funding in the US on the web, instead of just denying it. Please why don't you show me, and everyone else that what I say is wrong - where is your evidence? BTW, it is not possible to make an 'ad hominem attack' on an organisation, you really should know their proper usage, before you use 'big words'.

2
10
Click to rate

"I don't suppose that it has dawned on you that the reason that NASA has jumped on the AGW bandwagon, is that despite pre-election promises from Obama, their space programme is in tatters and they are now reliant on the AGW scam to remain in existence, without more massive cuts." - Mad Miner, London, 27/9/2011 17:40 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ As ever you don't actually have any scientific evidence, just an ad hominem attack on NASA. Normally everything you say is paranoid nonsense with no actual evidence to back it up. But why not prove me wrong for once. What's your source for stating that NASA funding is dependent upon producing evidence that confirms AGW theory? I'd bet a pretty penny you don't have a lick of evidence to support your claim.

16
5
Click to rate

@Whtrz, London: I don't suppose that it has dawned on you that the reason that NASA has jumped on the AGW bandwagon, is that despite pre-election promises from Obama, their space programme is in tatters and they are now reliant on the AGW scam to remain in existence, without more massive cuts.

3
10
Click to rate

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now