In:
Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, American Geophysical Union (AGU), Vol. 83, No. 18 ( 2002-04-30), p. 197-199
Abstract:
We welcome the comments by Fisher et al. and Davis et al., which provide a useful opportunity to discuss further the reliability of oceanic heat‐flow measurements, especially from short probes, in greater detail than was possible in our first presentation. A problem with our presentation actually resides in its provocative headline: our results only raise questions about the interpretations of old, isolated measurements that were obtained using short penetration probes, mainly Bullard‐type probes made with three sensors disposed along a 2‐m‐long lance. Particularly, where underground water circulation is suspected, there is no question that only a large number of closely‐spaced (by a few tens to a few hundreds of meters) measurements allow the determination of the heat‐flow local variability.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0096-3941
,
2324-9250
DOI:
10.1029/2002EO000135
Language:
English
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
Publication Date:
2002
detail.hit.zdb_id:
24845-9
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2118760-5
detail.hit.zdb_id:
240154-X
SSG:
16,13
Permalink