It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Iggus
You suggest that the sinking of the northward water would take place at some latitude whatever happens and that my suggestion that this is near the ice pack is nonsense. However, the formation of ice is one of the major driving factors in dense water formation and thus the sinking of this water and its conversion into North Atlantic Deep Water.
As ice is formed through freezing the water rejects the salt from it and puts it back into the ocean. This salty water eventually becomes so salty, and thus dense, that it sinks creating the dense water which drives the thermohaline circulation.
Originally posted by Iggus
OK maybe a little harsh but the point is that if you are going to question the work of others then do it with as much accuracy as they have used to presnt their ideas. It makes it much easier to discuss.
Our projections of greenhouse-gas induced sea-level rise due to thermal expansion between 1985 and 2 025 are also relatively small, 4-8 cm, accompanied by a global mean warming in the range 0.6-1.0°C. Estimating future changes in sea level therefore depends crucially on predicting the future melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets, a daunting task.
This does not apply to sea water. The addition of salt to the water lowers the temperature of maximum density, and once the salinity exceeds 24.7 parts per thousand (most Arctic surface water is 30-35), the temperature of maximum density disappears. Cooling of the ocean surface by a cold atmosphere will therefore always make the surface water more dense and will continue to cause convection right down to the freezing point - which itself is depressed by the addition of salt to about -1.8°C for typical sea water.
Originally posted by Long Lance
what's wrong, well, as far as i can tell, the scale is. if you take typical thermal expansion coefficients of water into account and that only 100-200m are affected for the most part, the calculated rise is measured in cm only.
let's see, even if the actual warming was 4C (by 2100), if linearity applies, the estimation reaches 32cm, well make that 40, because ß increases with temp. still, what's the fuss about? maybe it's because i'm a landrat, i just don't see the catastrophy.
i read the article, though and appreciate it.
so, i stand corrected and the minimum for avg. sea water is at roughly -1.8C, at which point it starts to freeze.
PS: i know i shouldn't but how much of the ocean current has to freeze in order to noticably increase its salinity?