- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:24 pm to Iosh
quote:
Am I really going to sit here and explain to you the concept of a halocline?
I'm an oceanographer too.
I would love for you to sit here and explain the concept of a halocline
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:25 pm to Iosh
quote:
t's really sort of depressing how people either pretend to be dumb or actually stop thinking where AGW is concerned. Like, you're an oceanographer. Am I really going to sit here and explain to you the concept of a halocline?
actually the term is "pycnocline" as it is both temperature and salinity based. We wont even get into the fact that the "pycnocline" in the antarctic is more based on temperature or that it is exceedingly variable and often disappears due to deep water formation in that area. nevermind the fact that if there was a strong pycnocline then the water would be even warmer at the surface and further retard sea ice formation.
But yes, let's talk about "dumb", or "not thinking"....
But let's dispense with that simple error on your part and move back into the concept of "heat capacity".
Answer one question for me:
Does the heat capacity of water change as a function of temperature?
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:32 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Does the heat capacity of water change as a function of temperature?
classical definition says it shouldn't change, but it does especially at ridiculously low temperatures because molecules are limited in motion due to the cold.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:33 pm to gaetti15
quote:
I'm an oceanographer too.
I would love for you to sit here and explain the concept of a halocline
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:35 pm to gaetti15
quote:
but it does especially at ridiculously low temperatures because molecules are limited in motion due to the cold.
agreed.
But we're talking about photic zone waters here,not even close to cold enough, then add in the higher salinity...
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:36 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
I'm an oceanographer too. I would love for you to sit here and explain the concept of a halocline
CptBengal is correct though it is technically a pycnocline in this situation.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:38 pm to CptBengal
quote:
But we're talking about photic zone waters here,not even close to cold enough, then add in the higher salinity...
oh yeah its definitely not going to change in ocean waters
I was just trying to be technically correct especially after the pycnocline comment
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:38 pm to gaetti15
quote:
I was just trying to be technically correct especially after the pycnocline comment
the best kind of correct!
i honestly had a chuckle when I saw his response.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:41 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Does the heat capacity of water change as a function of temperature?
Of course it does.
Where are you going with this line of questioning?
(I'm interested because, finally, we are using a property of matter which seems to get ignored in GW debates.)
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:42 pm to gaetti15
I wasn't quibbling with your use of the term (nor am I professing to know much about either term), I was just awaiting what our resident 'I'm the only guy who really knows anything about anything' has to say.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:43 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Where are you going with this line of questioning?
go see my reply to him about water (high heat capacity) and landmass (low heat capacity) in response to his argument about sea ice and cap ice.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:00 pm to CptBengal
quote:
go see my reply to him about water (high heat capacity) and landmass (low heat capacity) in response to his argument about sea ice and cap ice.
Well it's obvious that water has a negative feedback effect on surface temperature due the thermodynamic properties of water, specifically its specific heat (aka, heat capacity). We can see this observation in humid temperate regions versus desert regions of the same latitude.
For example, Huntsville, AL has is the same latitude as Las Vegas but Las Vegas sees higher highs during the day and lower lows at night. And vise versa for Huntsville, AL. If water (in the vapor form in this case) provided a positive feedback we would should see higher highs in Huntsville, AL.
We see the opposite. Water (vapor in this example) provides a negative feedback. It cools.
But the GW research community defines water vapor as greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases are supposed to provide a positive feedback effect. That is, the more you have of it the higher the surface temperature. That's what they say about CO2.
But we observe the opposite.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:02 pm to GumboPot
quote:
But we observe the opposite.
it's an interesting little conundrum they have made.
I'm sure the acolytes who were posting in this thread are scurrying about currently, searching for someway to refute thermodynamics.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:05 pm to Bard
quote:The ice caps are largely made up of snowfall, compacted over time. It's freshwater. When they lose mass to the surrounding ocean, that freshwater mixes with the surface layer, making the surface less saline and spreading the area that will more readily freeze farther down and out. There's also evidence that the warming itself is causing more direct precipitation onto the Southern Ocean, which further reduces salinity. Thus you end up with more sea ice, which also has feedbacks of its own on both the ocean below and the atmosphere above.
So how does sea ice increase if cap ice is decreasing? Is the ice cap just spreading?
This contradiction was predicted in 1991 by the modeling of Manabe, et al (p. 795).
quote:No, I'm pretty sure the term is "halocline," because I'm talking about salinity. If you want to talk about other clines, awesome. If you've got a mathematical showing that the temperature component of the pycnocline neutralizes the salinity component, I'm all ears. If you just want to talk about all the stuff you know that I don't to show how much of an expert you are and how much I DONE IT NOW BOY by challenging you? You can probably do that too. But this isn't some theory invented by Iosh, TigerDroppings.com poster. I'm simply recapitulating the actual scientific literature.
actually the term is "pycnocline" as it is both temperature and salinity based. We wont even get into the fact that the "pycnocline" in the antarctic is more based on temperature or that it is exceedingly variable and often disappears due to deep water formation in that area. nevermind the fact that if there was a strong pycnocline then the water would be even warmer at the surface and further retard sea ice formation.
LINK
LINK
Now you claim to be an expert, but made an incredibly shallow argument ignoring an incredibly obvious mechanism (salinity) by which the heat capacity of the water could be modified. That might be because you just didn't want to bother. But in my experience most skeptics with actual qualifications just aren't interested in challenging the literature head-on. They usually just say "As an expert in X..." and then pound on the same old shallow talking points. Maybe you're different. Maybe you can read the above papers and tell me why they're crap. It would be genuinely interesting to me, no bullshite!
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:22 pm to Iosh
quote:
No, I'm pretty sure the term is "halocline," because I'm talking about salinity.
Yes, that is a halocline. However because of deep water formation in that area and SEA ICE PRODUCTION, the water is fairly stable in terms of salinity from the surface on down. Here, let's look at a graph: So we have a .2 ppt change in salinity (
), versus a 3 degree change in temperature, and you still think it's a halocline driven stratification? you're embarrassing yourself. quote:
f you've got a mathematical showing that the temperature component of the pycnocline neutralizes the salinity component, I'm all ears.
here's what I posted about a pycnocline:
quote:
ctually the term is "pycnocline" as it is both temperature and salinity based.
See the BOTH word in there. Neutralize what? wtf are you even talking about? Or are you just tilting at windmills?
From your paper you cited. Actually it has the stable water mass between 100-150 m depth. Do you know why? Deep Water Formation.
quote:
but made an incredibly shallow argument ignoring an incredibly obvious mechanism (salinity) by which the heat capacity of the water could be modified.
And what does increased salinity due to waters heat capacity?
or were you going to argue that this fresh water on the surface, which incidentally freezes due to a lack of salinity, thereby in your article's opinion increasing sea ice have to do with the heat capacity of the surrounding water?
How does that affect the salinity argument at all?
quote:
But in my experience most skeptics with actual qualifications just aren't interested in challenging the literature head-on.
I just did.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:23 pm to bamarep
quote:
BOTH SIDES FABRICATE AND MANIPULATE DATA!!
You realize that doesn't become true just because people keep repeating that it is, right?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
[quote]BOTH SIDES FABRICATE AND MANIPULATE DATA!! [/quote}
one day people will realize that statistics is an art as much as it is a science.
There are acceptable ways of manipulating data in statistics...
one day people will realize that statistics is an art as much as it is a science.
There are acceptable ways of manipulating data in statistics...
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:30 pm to gaetti15
quote:
There are acceptable ways of manipulating data in statistics...
exactly.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:47 pm to CptBengal
quote:When did I say it was a "halocline-driven stratification?" I attributed the recent rise in sea ice to changes in the halocline. Not the entirety of Antarctic stratification.
So we have a .2 ppt change in salinity ( ), versus a 3 degree change in temperature, and you still think it's a halocline driven stratification? you're embarrassing yourself.
quote:I stated that recent growth in Antarctic sea ice was attributable to changes in the halocline. You stated that the temperature is a far greater driver of stratification than the halocline, which is certainly true. But that's an insufficient basis by itself to invalidate the hypothesis. You would have to quantify the surface temperature changes in that area specifically and show that they are in a direction which could also account for the ice growth. However, you would have a difficult time doing so, since their direction has been warming. (However, since the "warming" is still below the freezing point, the loss of salinity results in increased sea ice, further enhanced by feedbacks from reduced convection.)
See the BOTH word in there. Neutralize what? wtf are you even talking about? Or are you just tilting at windmills?
quote:By the way, the above paper was written by Judith Curry, one of the more prominent skeptics in the business. I'm no expert myself, but when the skeptics and the alarmists are singing the same tune, I think there's consensus in them thar hills.
The simplest explanation for this change is a freshening of surface water in the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean, and the estimated increase of P - E in the Southern Ocean is about 31 mm per year between 55°S and 65°S. Using measurements from the Argo network of profiling floats and historical oceanographic data, a more-recent analysis detected that the Southern Ocean became fresher since the 1960s, which extends to depths of more than 1,000m. Another potential contributor to the increased freshening of surface water in the southern high latitudes might be the increased melting of glacial ice and iceberg calving. The increased freshwater input in the high latitudes of the Southern Ocean would decrease the upper ocean salinity (density), leading to a more stable thermohaline stratification and weakened convective overturning. This reduces the upward ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. Because of the reduced upward ocean heat transport, the simulated SST under sea ice in the 1990s was ~0.2 °C colder than that in the 1950s (Fig. 4A). In a weakly stratified Southern Ocean, the ocean heat flux induced ice melt decreases faster than the ice growth, allowing an increase in the net ice production.
quote:I can't really parse this very well, but you seem to be arguing that the fresh water freezes on the surface and doesn't mix with the surrounding water? To which I say: not immediately, no. Eventually, after enough minima and drift, yes.
And what does increased salinity due to waters heat capacity?
or were you going to argue that this fresh water on the surface, which incidentally freezes due to a lack of salinity, thereby in your article's opinion increasing sea ice have to do with the heat capacity of the surrounding water?
How does that affect the salinity argument at all?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News