This post, and web address looked a little fishy to
me, so I googled the information, and found a bunch
of web sites with this story.
The new story says:
"turbulence levels as large as one-10th watt per
cubic meter"
One-10th watt ?? that would be 1/10 watt right?
that's nothing. That would be the equivalent of 1
100 watt powerhead every 1,000 cubic meters. That's
not much water movement. That makes no sense at all.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Wayne Sallee
Webmaster@LeesburgNazarene.org
nicholaschapman.fr@gmail.com wrote on 8/11/2007
11:23 AM:
> FSU study in Nature says newfound turbulence in undersea mountains
> affects ocean circulation.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> city's tall buildings is generating one of the most turbulent areas
> ever observed in the deep ocean.

Signature
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
George Patterson - 11 Aug 2007 18:31 GMT
> The new story says:
> "turbulence levels as large as one-10th watt per cubic meter"
>
> One-10th watt ?? that would be 1/10 watt right? that's nothing.
In addition to that, the article makes no claim that this "turbulence" is
increasing or decreasing. If it's been doing this for thousands of years and
keeps it up, we're in good shape.
George Patterson
If you torture the data long enough, eventually it will confess
to anything.