On Nat Geo there is a series called Alien Deep. In the episode Ocean’s Fury the oceans currents and their effect on climate and weather are explored.
In a nutshell: science has been grappling with calculating the energy in/energy out of ocean currents and have come to a problem that the amount of energy in they have accounted for does not explain the energy out in increasing wave activity. Which is to say the oceans are producing more energy in the form of waves that can be accounted for by the processes of wind, sun light and current mixing taking place. They have recently found a new ocean current and even adding its energy does not account for the changes taking place.
Enter scientist Kakani Katija, who has a rather unusual theory (my opinion) to account for the difference. (Initial investigations under way). She has proposed that mixing caused by the movement of biological life might account for the discrepancy in the energy in/energy out model. She is attempting to measure the fluid displacement (mixing) created by marine life in motion to account for the missing energy in. The notion is to map the biomass in motion within the oceans to see if it comes close to accounting for the differences in the model of energy in/energy out.
If she is on to something, then the result would be explained as the biomass in motion within the oceans has direct effects on the planets climate and local weather phenomenon. She is currently studying/playing with lasers, dye and swimming jellyfish to computer model the amount of energy added to a fluid by a jellyfish in motion. She has some cool software which can ‘see’ motion over time within the dye and estimate the amount of energy exchange taking place. Her plan is to sample the variety of species based on their representative displacement and come up with some baseline across the biomass spectrum and extrapolate from there how much energy is being input into the system by swimming marine life.
I found it interesting that she is attempting to take into account the energy input of life and its motion in a field of study that traditionally has attempted to model climate in strictly inorganic ways. The question of whether climate is affected by life on the planet is interesting stuff.
Seems, within at least lunar cycles that the gravitational pull (energy added) is not varying all that much. As the moon is slowly moving out of its orbit; lunar cycles would account for less and less energy input over time and the discrepancy between energy in/out would be increasing as the moons gravitational pull would be adding less and less energy over time.
But yes I agree, the explosion of a nuclear device under the surface of the ocean would impart an awful lot of energy. I guess I’m not sure how much nuclear testing is taking place under the ocean. We’re fairly sure how much energy is produced by a nuclear reaction of a given size so if we had an accurate tally of this type of input it would seem to be fairly easy to factor it into the model. The covert nature of nuclear testing does seem to present a difficulty in ascertaining an accurate tally.
I don’t understand that part.
Any changing of the Moon’s orbit is taking place over millions of years. But even so, how is that any concern to the “in/out” measurement problem? Certainly they aren’t comparing the in from a million years ago and then measuring it against today’s readings.
And btw, the lunar energy that goes into the total oceanic system is actually stemming from the Earth’s rotation against the Moon’s orbit. With each rotation, the water rises and falls. Because of that, the energy of the rotation gets used up in the friction and the Earth slows a bit. After a few billion years, the Earth wouldn’t be rotating with respect to the Moon any longer (“harmony finally arrived”)… just an interesting thought.
This thread has real forehead smacking possibility. Hmm, Since hunting of ocean life has been curtailed and pollution of waters is more under control…,. could we be cutting the land dwellers throats? Or and I can see other ors
Sorry James, my bad. I was attempting to approach that thought without much thinking. LOL.
I was thinking they were including the lunar cycles in the calculation of both in and out energy. As we have a fairly good capacity to predict at what time and how high and low the tides are, i was thinking the energy into the system and out of the system with regard to the moons effect would cancel each other out from either side of the equation, unless there is some synergistic compounding taking place with which we are unaware. If the sum of the parts are equal to the whole, then lunar effect wouldn’t seem to be the cause of the imbalance in the equation. I have not heard of mathematical acceptance of the notion the whole is greater then the sum of its parts. The science appears to be looking for sources of energy that are yet unknown. The energy available in chemical reactions also appears relatively well modeled but as far as unknown volcanic venting goes there could be energy being added we aren’t aware of just as there was recently a new ocean current detected of which we weren’t aware.
One of the other points to the series is that we do not have the grounds of our oceans well mapped. There may be a lot down there we are unaware of. The narration seemed to favor spending the resources to understand our own planet rather then spending the funds exploring space. Often Space is considered the last frontier but Alien Deep makes us aware there is an unexplored frontier much closer to home.
Oh I’m sure that if they had figured out a means to use the ocean floor to monitor and control all life on the planet, the money would have gone there first. Now they are merely trying to fund ways to get into the deep clevises, not so observable or controllable.
James, I am uncertain where “monitor and control” has entered the picture. The perception I have is of an effort towards modeling, and its predictive capacity to better anticipate how to adjust to the the oncoming changes as a means towards adaptive survival.
Kakani Katija is studying fluid displacement caused by marine life at ocean depths of less then two atmospheres. Hardly think that equates to monitoring and controlling “all life”. At face value she seems to be attempting to fill a void in a scientific equation and get it to balance as a theory states it should.
While I do agree there is as justification for space exploration claims that there are benefit for us here on earth. Alien Deep asks the question whether it is more efficient to study and develop the science here or whether it is efficient to spend it there. Given the cost of transportation alone I’d say the resources would be more efficiently spent here. Can you point to a benefit of space exploration that would be unavailable to us here such that the cost to go there is justified? After all, the space project is dependent on what has been done ‘here’ that has enabled it.
The “benefit” to all such endeavors is the side effects.
You try to get to the Moon merely so that you can develop technology.
Technology allows for more control.
And if exploring the ocean bottom doesn’t propose the same, it will never be condoned.
Well I cant be specific because details in my head just are not popping up. I know that in the US space science is more privatizated. The govt is spending far far less and have laid off many employees in the program. So get the money from what is no longer being spent. Why cut funding entirely?
Mowk, have the tidal energies of the sun and moon been calculated since their gravitational attractions must contribute to the energy levels of the seas? Probably have, but that’s the first thing that came to my mind. The puzzle is interesting and the solution involving the influence of living creatures is very insightful I think, depending on how great the disparity is.
Samm, I guess I am limited to the information presented in the program so far. I’m no theoretical mathematician. I am a sailor and with a fair degree of accuracy the tides have been modeled and fall within some sort of predictable pattern. If we have that ability to forecast tides, I’d guess their effects have been factored into the equation. I’m not sure. The work of the scientist mentioned was what intrigued me, not so much the details of the math, living things interacting in such a way as to influence climate. I mean there is still some who debate humans role in the changes the planets climate is going through. I read into in there may come proof from an unexpected perspective.
You also have man-made ozone openings allowing huge amounts of solar energy in that normally wouldn’t be accounted. Those hurricanes don’t spring from the nothingness.