Re: The Western Interior Seaway: Riding out the storms

[MariusRomanus@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:06:54 AM Alaskan Standard Time, 
qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

>> Kris Kripchak (MariusRomanus@aol.com) wrote [on the vrtpaleo list, 
forwarded by
Phil] that he did not like using computer models, so I am curious:

How are we going to assess the variables and determine the structure of the 
seaway and its effect on the environment without using a system to input and 
analyze all the diverse metrics needed to create a likelihood? It is not as 
simple as saying "if the water was so deep, then so happens." As you wrote, 
there 
are so many variables and unknowns, that a computer model may be the only 
means of generating a likelihood analysis of the situation. If not, then why 
the 
distrust or disuse of the model? Afterall, this is the means by which 
meteorological studies are made. <<

Jaime... I said I didn't like computer models... I didn't say they were tools 
to be discarded. You don't need to explain to me the finer points of weather 
forecasting. Remember, I'm an AF Weather Officer... one of my degrees is in 
Atmopsheric Science... I have an intimate knowledge of the ins and outs of 
modeling the atmosphere. I use forecasting models every single day. It's my 
profession Jaime. So yes, in answer to your question, of course you'd have to 
use a 
model. I never stated, nor suggested otherwise.

(And I'll let you in on a little secret... The models are NEVER right. There 
is never a time where real-time adjustments to match the actual conditions 
don't have to be made.)

In a message dated 6/30/2005 12:06:54 AM Alaskan Standard Time, 
qilongia@yahoo.com writes:

>> Kris also made a statement about the 1-2km surface winds ... are these the 
top suggested numbers, or do they get higher on an annual mean, and how does 
this effect the gyre and thus the oxygen mixture seasonally?<<

See below about the winds. As for the cyclonic gyre, it only controls the 
surface flows, regardless of what forcing is used to induce it. Kump and 
Slingerland discuss that as being the uppermost 10m or so of the water column. 
It's 
basically the mixed layer I mentioned in my previous post. The strongest 
surface 
currents (about 2cm/sec to 10cm/s) were along the perimeter of the seaway, 
with the flows weakening as you approach the center (accelerating effect of 
shoaling water depths). Therefore, the gyre doesn't necessarily effect the 
oxygen 
mixture of the entire water column. It's turbulent mixing that destroys the 
stratified layers (hence your oxygen mixing) due to the model's selected 
boundary conditions being insufficient to generate the stable water column 
necessary 
to produce bottom water anoxia (contrasting water masses, mean annual 
temperature, wind, hydrological forcing, etc). This is why the conclusion is 
that for 
there to have been anoxic conditions at the sea bottom, there must have been 
forcings that were not included in the model, such as stronger seasonal 
contrasts in temperature forcing (to produce the seasonal thermocline), and 
also wind 
stress and water balance, which would have generated the required stratified 
waters... 
This is why I wrote what I wrote.

Furthermore, when it comes to those winter storms I discussed, the 
synoptic-scale models currently being utilized probably wouldn't do what I was 
suggesting any justice. What you'd need to design and run is a mesoscale model. 
Trouble 
is, I'm certain that we lack the resolution/percise boundary conditions 
required to build a model that would produce anything close to reliable results.

In a message dated 6/30/2005 1:16:02 AM Alaskan Standard Time, 
jrccea@bellsouth.net writes:

>> If I remember correctly, during the period I was interested in, their 
prediction of mean annual winds was very strong, on the order of  7 to 8 
knots...
JimC<