Talk:Thermohaline circulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] MCO
"The thermohaline circulation is sometimes called the ocean conveyor belt, the great ocean conveyer, the global conveyor belt, or, most commonly, the meridional overturning circulation (often abbreviated as MOC)."
Rahmstorf, S., Thermohaline Ocean Circulation, Encyclopedia of Quaternary Sciences, S. A. Elias Elsevier, Amsterdam 2006.
The MOC is related to the THC but is not the THC. The MOC is primarily wind driven and is derived using a different mechanism, e.g. an east-west channel.
[edit] Better Diagram?
That one was clearly done in MS Paint. Come on, folks. - Darkhawk
This is sourced from an h2g2 article I started writing a while ago, so it needs some work: style, wikification, and gaps filling [also references need page numbers]. It may also be better to split some of this into separate articles e.g. water mass properties. Comments? Tonderai 16:38, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I made a few changes here regarding the wind-vs-density issue. It is increasingly clear that the geometry of the thermohaline circulation (where deep water sinks) is determined by buoyancy, but the rate at which water cycles through this system is determined by mechanical energy supply- though not in a simple way (Ferrari and Wunsch, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 2004; Gnanadesikan et al., J. Climate., 2005).
they are so wrong its not even funny—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.51.130.77 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Effect on Europe?
I think this [1] pushes the balance too far the other way William M. Connolley 09:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I think you might mean the previous edit; that one only adds a weblink for the extra reference. Regarding said earlier edit, I was concerned that the study that suggested Europe wasn't warmed by the THC wasn't actually a study; it was a popular review. I wasn't sure if I should {{fact}}-tag it or something for a better reference, so I altered the language instead (it sounded like it was overstating things anyway). This has possibly made things more ambiguous however. The second part of my edit cleared up a chronology problem: the second reference was supposed to be criticising the first, but was actually published before it. I reworded to try to make more sense while retaining the same reference. Anyway, I'm not wedded to the changes at all, but if the text has to revert, I'd prefer a much stronger cite in support of the proposition. It's not really my area of expertise, but I as an oceanographer I routinely hear people describing the THC's northward heat transport as being at least partially responsible for Europe's warmer climate (of course, maybe they're all wrong - I'm no physicist!). Cheers, --Plumbago 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK, I probably meant [2]. But there is a Seager et al paper in QJRMS on the same issue that should be referenced. No need for reverting - its more a matter of needing more tweaking I think. And anyway its not the THC is the North Atlantic Drift William M. Connolley 11:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- It would really cool if there was some information or links to other effects the conveyor belt has on the world, or effects other than on europe its break down would have. Cheers.
And the complete shutdown of the system which is faced by global climate change would be good to include as well.
[edit] cycle duration? (just a few basic calculations.)
1600years cycle duration seems intuitively a bit long, the heat being moved at this rate wouldn't amount to much at all, and any way, with an estimated length of 100,000km the speed would be about 70km/year or less than 1mm/s, which seems intuitively a bit slow.
given a MAX flow rate of 10cm/s, (as i've found quoted elsewhere on-line) then the MIN cycle time is about 30years.
could it be that the 1600years is sort of a misquote, originally intended as a illustration of just how slow the slowest cycle time was, out near the edges of the conveyor where the speed obviously tappers off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.61.215 (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- 100,000 km? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greenland / Agassiz
Slightly unconvinced by [3]. I have a feeling LA was supposed to be gone by 8.2kyr, but I'm not sure William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, remnants of Lake Agassiz / the Laurentide Ice Sheet probably persisted till ~8ka. It's a common hypothesis that the 8.2 ka event was associated with the last major emptying of Agassiz, though its not the only hypothesis for the 8.2 event. Dragons flight (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
