[–] Vanwe 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yeah, I now think I was wrong on the bottom part there. That's what I get for not taking my time.
It looks to me like the red is supposed to represent total heat, which they measured for the first 2000m. The black line would exclude the first 700m, meaning it only shows the "deep water". Is this your reading of it as well? That doesn't make any sense though, because to the right of the graph the difference between the lines increases to the right. If the total heat increases more than the deep water heat, wouldn't that indicate that more heat was in the not deep water, the top 700m? That's exactly the opposite of what Nasa said it finds. I think I may still be reading it wrong.
Unrelated note, always nice to have some rational discussion. Thanks.
[–] Level_Cannon ago
That was my reading too and I agree, I feel like we are both missing something in relation to the NASA study. I will have to read through the NASA study closer since the Argo chart we are looking at is just the source material for the study. The NASA researcher must have seen data points that we can't see just from looking at the graph.
I agree :) I keep running into discussions with people on here that end in "well I don't care what you think, I am right and you can't change my mind" which is super frustrating. I will be the first to admit I am wrong if I am shown proof that I am and can't find anything to respond with.
[–] Vanwe ago
I am skeptic by nature. If I don't have access to the information on a claim like NASA is making, I tend to not trust it. Nasa is probably seeing more data than just Argo and NASA is usually pretty good, but I prefer to look at the study. Unfortunately I do not have the time these days to really investigate a lot of stuff.