- 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
2
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
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News