- 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
re: So NOAA and NASA are doctoring temperature data.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:08 pm to Iosh
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:08 pm to Iosh
quote:
I attributed the recent rise in sea ice to changes in the halocline. Not the entirety of Antarctic stratification.
so you're telling me a stratification that occurs 150+ meters down, and isnt the determinate or even majority control of depth strata is driving surface sea ice production?
quote:
I stated that recent growth in Antarctic sea ice was attributable to changes in the halocline.
And I'm telling you the halocline is damn near non-existent in those waters. It's a a fact. the graph I posted was from a PRO warming paper in nature.
quote:
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.
Your hypiothesis depends on halocline stratification. Due to deep water formation and low variability in salinity...there is essentially ZERO halocline stratification. that does invalidate your argument.
quote:
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.
No, you don't. as you say one sentence later:
quote:
he "warming" is still below the freezing point
then you say:
quote:
the loss of salinity results in increased sea ice,
Loss of salinity? Is the salt going somewhere else? in fact, formation of sea ice INCREASES SALINITY. It's one of the two mechanisms that control deep basin circulation.
quote:
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.
good god man, We can get into small scale eddy formation as result of deep water formation from temperature and salinity. I'm telling you if the wtaer doesnt freeze on the surface, THERE IS NO WAY IT IS BEING TRANSPORTED TO THE 150 m DEPTH YOUR PAPER CLAIMS BEFORE MIXING.
it isnt happening. period.
Later tonight I'll download the salinity and temp data for the coastal Antarctic shelf and plot it up for you.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:20 pm to CptBengal
quote:The graph you're posting is referring to the second-order feedbacks, not the salinity. Hence the reason stability is the measure and not salinity.
so you're telling me a stratification that occurs 150+ meters down, and isnt the determinate or even majority control of depth strata is driving surface sea ice production?
And I'm telling you the halocline is damn near non-existent in those waters. It's a a fact. the graph I posted was from a PRO warming paper in nature.
Your hypiothesis depends on halocline stratification. Due to deep water formation and low variability in salinity...there is essentially ZERO halocline stratification. that does invalidate your argument.
quote:No, it's being diluted by runoff from the cap ice and from increased precipitation. Neither of which contain salt. You seem to be having a hard time with this, and I don't really know why.
Loss of salinity? Is the salt going somewhere else?
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:25 pm to Iosh
quote:
he vast majority of it isn't occurring 150 meters down. It's occurring near the surface. Look at the chart you excerpted again. 150 meters down is merely the limit of detectable change in stability trends.
Yes, that drastic change in salinity....thats called, wait for it....
THE HALOCLINE
quote:
No, it's being diluted by runoff from the cap ice and from increased precipitation.
and yet we dont see a drop in the salinity at the surface, only in the halocline. Or are you claiming that a 0.2 ppt change in salinity is actually statistically significant.
let me put it another way....the amount of runoff is incapable of changing the salinity in a basin of that size. It isnt possible. frick, major rivers (Yangtzee, Miss, Amazon, ganges, etc) are only able to change salinity by a few ppt. and only in the very immediate area.
you're claiming a 0.2 ppt change as significant. it's laughable.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:28 pm to CptBengal
quote:
and yet we dont see a drop in the salinity at the surface, only in the halocline.
FIG. 4B.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:31 pm to Iosh
look again, they dont even report the upermost part of the water, can you guess why?
Then riddle me this, if the nearly nonexistant halocline at 150m depth is 0.2 ppt, do you really believe a change of 0.03 ppt at the surface is a halocline? Or is it a place of localized runoff at that SPECIFIC longitude?
It doesnt even make sense under the definition.
Then riddle me this, if the nearly nonexistant halocline at 150m depth is 0.2 ppt, do you really believe a change of 0.03 ppt at the surface is a halocline? Or is it a place of localized runoff at that SPECIFIC longitude?
It doesnt even make sense under the definition.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:32 pm to Iosh
quote:Let's set aside for a moment the fact that you're making a snapshot comparison of the salinity in strata layers within a single halocline and I'm talking about the changes in salinity for a given stratum over time. Have you looked at the scale of the sea ice changes the skeptics are claiming as significant?
you're claiming a 0.2 ppt change as significant. it's laughable.
Don't take but a little to make a little.
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 3:35 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:34 pm to Iosh
quote:
Have you looked at the scale
yes, scale matters.
For example 0.2 ppt isnt a big deal.
however 0.2 metric tons is a lot of weight.
scales depend on units. The graph you gave is in________, and salinity is in __________.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Whats funny is I am bigger than he was in that movie. Yeah, nerds.
BTW do you belong to forum 35?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:37 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Whats funny is I am bigger than he was in that movie. Yeah, nerds.
i thought about something similar when i posted it, but idgaf
quote:
BTW do you belong to forum 35?
no idea waht that is, but i've been drunk a lot the past 10 years so i'll go google to make sure i didn't join while drunk
*ETA: oh no. i don't live in BR. i live in LC
This post was edited on 7/23/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:40 pm to CptBengal
just know, in case you're scheming, i'm typically armed if not in a courthouse
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
just know, in case you're scheming, i'm typically armed
I am always friendly and affable.
quote:
if not in a courthouse
you know what Chris Rock said about places with metal detectors
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:42 pm to CptBengal
well i didn't think our disagreement over lebron would lead to blows, but i was just letting you know b/c that ellipsis was evil-looking
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
CptBengal SlowFlowPro
Enough PM'ing, get a room :p. I need more sciencey stuff!
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:45 pm to Bard
we're waiting on Iosh to go google
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we're waiting on Iosh to go google
I'm at work so I can't participate in this fully, but this is a funny discussion.
I haven't seen CptBengal debate like this since the Red Snapper discussion on the OB
Posted on 7/23/14 at 4:15 pm to gaetti15
quote:
debate like this since
debate like what?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News