|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salinity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is the technical term really halinity? The halogens make up a portion of salinity. Similarily, chlorinity is not a technical term for salinity, but is a portion of the salinity. :Piyrwq 00:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, there is no consistency (as near as I can tell) in use of this term, in the main because there are lots more "oceanographers" out there than limnologists. The term is real, but education being what it is these days in the US, I would not be surprised if few have encountered it. Chlorinity is a technical term regularly used for "salinity", the latter having been defined to obscurity by oceanographers. - Marshman 04:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
salinity of sea water
I WORK IN A WATER LABORATORY IN A SEA WATER INJECTION FACILITY. THE SALINITY METER I USE SHOWS SALINITY IN PERCENTAGE. WHAT DOES IT ACTUALLY MEAN? DOES 35% SALINITY MEAN THAT THERE IS 35 GRAMS OF SALT IN 100 GRAM WATER?
- The measurement "parts per thousand or ppt or o/oo" is a ratio just as is percentage (or parts per hundred or %). So,
the answer is yes, that is sort of what it means: 35 grams in 100 grams of the solution. Seawater has a salinity of around 3.4 or 3.5%. If your meter is reading 35% that is an awful lot of salt (imagine a container that is 1 part salt in 2 parts water!).(Which is to say, "No, your meter is not telling you that there are 35 grams of salt in 100 grams of your water", but rather that there are 35 parts-per-thousand grams of salt in a thousand parts/ grams of your water. Very different!!! Please forgive me for clarifying here. KDS4444 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)) I suspect it should be reading 3.5% or is reading 35 o/oo - Marshman 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- The meter probably measures conductivity and is calibrated using some reference solutions such that the 35 reading corresponds to 32.4356 g of KCl at 15°C in a 1 kg solution. Maybe see http://www.toptotop.org/climate/psu.php or http://www.osil.co.uk/web/osil/osil.nsf/(AllbyUnid)/28E889A530E6694A80256D2B0031C90F?opendocument 220.127.116.11 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, 1 kg being 1000 parts solution, so reading not in percent - Marshman
Can anyone tell me why humans can't drink salt water?
source of salinity
My daughter asked me why the oceans are so salty.
They are saline because of freshwater run off. This brings dissolved minerals to the sea. Subduction of the seabed removes the minerals and this is why the oceans have a salinity of approximately 35. I read about this hypothesis in Bill Brysons "A short history of nearly everything". The reason I am at this article is to find out if Wikipedia has a standard unit for reporting salinity? I am used to reporting it as a unitless ratio, is this the case for wikipedia?Celticbattlepants 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
salinity has NO unit
The practical salinity scale was defined as a conductivity ratio, NOT redefined in practical salinity units. So all salinity values should be given without any physical unit. For some more in depth explanation of that, see e.g. http://www.oceanographers.net/forums/showthread.php?t=902 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prieni (talk • contribs) 13:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am a process engineer. I find that use of absolute units is very much easier. For quantities use of mass is most helpful. In the case of salinity this would best be expressed in mass of salt / unit volume of water or unit mass of water. In this way any required calculations are much easier than starting from things such as conductivity ratio. The reason I suspect that conductivity ratio is used is that it is easier to measure in a lab. However such figures really need to be cross referenced to absolute units to make use of them. Jerry 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hypersaline redirects here but is not mentioned. Are the terms hypersaline and hyperhaline synonyms? Hypersaline gets 50 times as many hits on google as hyperhaline, so I think that it should at least get a mention as an alternative. Mikenorton (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Link on algorithms
It was not my intention to create a spam link. I now know that this link does not fit the standards of Wikipedia. I just thought these information for converting different entities could be helpful. What about the link http://www.code10.info/index.php?view=category&id=54%3Acat_coding_algorithms_seawater&option=com_content&Itemid=56 . Would this fit? Bye, Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolstring; (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
New graphic from Aquarius satellite
There's a new world map of oceanic salinity available from NASA's Aquarius mission at this link (not yet uploaded to Wikimedia Commons). See this article. Spikebrennan (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
PSU not motivated in the article
The "practical salinity unit" is effectively not motivated in the article since it completely lacks any reference to physical salinity. The statement "It is not the case that a salinity of 35 exactly equals 35 grams of salt per liter of solution." only says that PSU is not equal to grams per liter. But without any hint, how much salt content equals a given PSU value, the use of PSU in the article is completely meaningless. A conversion table between PSU and g/l would be useful, but it seems that even Google doesn't find any conversion table.--SiriusB (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a large overlap between this article and R. Manivanan, Water Quality Modeling: Rivers, Streams, and Estuaries, 2008 . At first, I deleted the common text from this article, assuming that Wikipedia had plagiarized Manivanan. But Manivanan was apparently published in 2008, and our content dates from before then. Also, footnotes were progressively added to the Wikipedia text, with Manivanan sharing footnotes which weren't in the original version of the Wikipedia text. So it looks as though Manivanan may have plagiarized Wikipedia. There may be other explanations, but at this point, it looks as though Wikipedia is not the plagiarizer. --Macrakis (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)