The two-way mixed model : A long and winding controversy

Resumen tomado de la publicación

On the energetics of stratified turbulent mixing, irreversible thermodynamics, Boussinesq models and the ocean heat engine controversy

In this paper, the available potential energy (APE) framework of Winters et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 289, 1995, p. 115) is extended to the fully compressible Navier– Stokes equations, with the aims of clarifying (i) the nature of the energy conversions taking place in turbulent thermally stratified fluids; and (ii) the role of surface buoyancy fluxes in the Munk & Wunsch (Deep-Sea Res., vol. 45, 1998, p. 1977) constraint on the mechanical energy sources of stirring required to maintain diapycnal mixing in the oceans. The new framework reveals that the observed turbulent rate of increase in the background gravitational potential energy GPEr , commonly thought to occur at the expense of the diffusively dissipated APE, actually occurs at the expense of internal energy, as in the laminar case. The APE dissipated by molecular diffusion, on the other hand, is found to be converted into internal energy (IE), similar to the viscously dissipated kinetic energy KE. Turbulent stirring, therefore, does not introduce a new APE/GPEr mechanical-to-mechanical energy conversion, but simply enhances the existing IE/GPEr conversion rate, in addition to enhancing the viscous dissipation and the entropy production rates. This, in turn, implies that molecular diffusion contributes to the dissipation of the available mechanical energy ME =APE +KE, along with viscous dissipation. This result has important implications for the interpretation of the concepts of mixing efficiency γmixing and flux Richardson number Rf , for which new physically based definitions are proposed and contrasted with previous definitions. The new framework allows for a more rigorous and general re-derivation from the first principles of Munk & Wunsch (1998, hereafter MW98)’s constraint, also valid for a non-Boussinesq ocean: G(KE) ≈ 1 − ξ Rf ξ Rf Wr, forcing = 1 + (1 − ξ )γmixing ξ γmixing Wr, forcing , where G(KE) is the work rate done by the mechanical forcing, Wr, forcing is the rate of loss of GPEr due to high-latitude cooling and ξ is a nonlinearity parameter such that ξ =1 for a linear equation of state (as considered by MW98), but ξ <1 otherwise. The most important result is that G(APE), the work rate done by the surface buoyancy fluxes, must be numerically as large as Wr, forcing and, therefore, as important as the mechanical forcing in stirring and driving the oceans. As a consequence, the overall mixing efficiency of the oceans is likely to be larger than the value γmixing =0.2 presently used, thereby possibly eliminating the apparent shortfall in mechanical stirring energy that results from using γmixing =0.2 in the above formula.

Knowledge sharing: Context, confusion and controversy

Project managers in the construction industry increasingly seek to learn from other industrial sectors. Knowledge sharing between different contexts is thus viewed as an essential source of competitive advantage. It is important therefore for project managers from all sectors to address and develop appropriate methods of knowledge sharing. However, too often it is assumed that knowledge freely exists and can be captured and shared between contexts. Such assumptions belie complexities and problems awaiting the unsuspecting knowledge-sharing protagonist. Knowledge per se is a problematic esoteric concept that does not lend itself easily to codification. Specifically tacit knowledge possessed by individuals, presents particular methodological issues for those considering harnessing its utility in return for competitive advantage. The notion that knowledge is also embedded in specific social contexts compounds this complexity. It is argued that knowledge is highly individualistic and concomitant with the various surrounding contexts within which it is shaped and enacted. Indeed, these contexts are also shaped as a consequence of knowledge adding further complexity to the problem domain. Current methods of knowledge capture, transfer and, sharing fall short of addressing these problematic issues. Research is presented that addresses these problems and proposes an alternative method of knowledge sharing. Drawing on data and observations collected from its application, the findings clearly demonstrate the crucial role of re-contextualisation, social interaction and dialectic debate in understanding knowledge sharing.

Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy

Changes in atmospheric temperature have a particular importance in climate research because climate models consistently predict a distinctive vertical profile of trends. With increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, the surface and troposphere are consistently projected to warm, with an enhancement of that warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Hence, attempts to detect this distinct ‘fingerprint’ have been a focus for observational studies. The topic acquired heightened importance following the 1990 publication of an analysis of satellite data which challenged the reality of the projected tropospheric warming. This review documents the evolution over the last four decades of understanding of tropospheric temperature trends and their likely causes. Particular focus is given to the difficulty of producing homogenized datasets, with which to derive trends, from both radiosonde and satellite observing systems, because of the many systematic changes over time. The value of multiple independent analyses is demonstrated. Paralleling developments in observational datasets, increased computer power and improved understanding of climate forcing mechanisms have led to refined estimates of temperature trends from a wide range of climate models and a better understanding of internal variability. It is concluded that there is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively

Scientists and the cultural politics of academic disciplines in late 19th-century Germany: Emil Du Bois-Reymond and the controversy over the role of the cultural sciences

This article is concerned with interactions between the natural and the human sciences. It examines a specific late 19th-century episode in their relationship and argues that the schism between the two branches of knowledge was due to cognitive factors, but consolidated through the social dynamics of institutionalized disciplines. It contends that the assignment of a social function to the human sciences to compensate for the self-destructive tendencies inherent in the technological society was expressed even by those, at the end of the 19th century, who were fervent advocates of a science- and technology-driven modernization.

Localisation and William Macewen`s early brain surgery part I: the controversy

Neurosurgery for the removal of brain tumours based on localising signs is usually dated from the 1884 operation by Bennett and Godlee. However, within weeks of that operation claims were made on behalf of William Macewen, the Glasgow surgeon, to have been the real pioneer of such surgery. According to Macewen's protagonists, he had conducted seven similar operations earlier than Bennett and Godlee and, in a notable 1888 address, Macewen described these seven pre-1884 cases and a number of others operated on after 1884. This paper, which is in two parts, contains an evaluation of the claims made for the priority of Macewen's pre-1884 operations. Part I deals mainly with Macewen's work in fields other than brain surgery that are relevant to it and sets out the facts of the controversy. It begins with a brief biography of Macewen, describes his pioneering work in antiseptic and aseptic surgery, his work on osteotomy and bone regeneration, and his use in brain surgery of the knowledge so gained. Part I concludes with an examination of the battle waged in the newspapers between Macewen's and Bennett's and Godlee's supporters, and of previously unpublished correspondence between Macewen himself, David Ferrier and Hughes Bennett. The primary records of the patients on whom Macewen operated, together with other materials relevant to the controversy, are examined in Part II.