We are making
assumptions about the depth of reflection based only on the evidence shared through the entries examined.
Not exact matches
I apologize if this is much more in
depth than you asked for but I think painting a complete picture of our
assumptions is important whenever we talk
about numbers.
The standard
assumption has been that, while heat is transferred rapidly into a relatively thin, well - mixed surface layer of the ocean (averaging
about 70 m in
depth), the transfer into the deeper waters is so slow that the atmospheric temperature reaches effective equilibrium with the mixed layer in a decade or so.
The uncertainties can reach centuries or even millennia due to carbon reservoir effects, wrong
assumptions about sedimentation rates between and beyond the tie - point ages and due to the «lock - in
depth», which means that magnetic particles might remain subject to adjustment while the sediment is still unconsolidated.
What I would like to know is, what do global climate models say
about the
depth of the warm oceanic layer in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere near the U.S., both under the standard
assumptions and under
assumptions of greater runoff from Greenland which almost all glaciologists seem to find most likely.
To get to your figure of 2 km ^ 3 would require the
assumption that water is circulating to a
depth of
about 1 km.
Through an in -
depth case study, this paper demonstrates how these
assumptions cohere in practice and are used to assess mothering as deficient, to choose therapeutic options, to shape women's behaviour, and to formulate decisions
about child placement.