Currents in Los Angeles Harbor and Vicinity
(See page 685, May, 1939, Proceedings)
Dr. H. U. Sverdrup, Director Scripps Institution of Oceanography.—In a recent article Mr. Leypoldt has made references to my studies of the upwelling off the coast of California, to which he takes exception:
Dr. Sverdrup assigns the wind as the cause of the upwelling, but points out that other possibilities exist. The writer, of course, is assigning the variation of “mean sea level” as the primary cause of the phenomenon.
I wish to state that not only I, but all other oceanographers who have dealt with the phenomena of upwelling ascribe the process to the influence of winds. I shall not repeat the many arguments in favor of this view, but it seems appropriate to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Leypoldt’s conclusions are based on several misconceptions.
Mr. Leypoldt states again and again that changes in sea level are purely a function of the rainfall factors, evaporation, and precipitation, and that in periods when those factors cannot account for an increase in sea level an influx of water must take place. He also states that owing to the differences in phase of the annual variation of sea level in the two hemispheres “considerable water must be transferred annually between the hemispheres.” Mr. Leypoldt entirely overlooks the facts that sea level does change owing to changes in the temperature of the water, and that expansion and contraction of water columns which are subjected to annual variation of temperature can readily account for sea level changes up to 0.5 feet.
Although it is true, as pointed out by Mr. Leypoldt, that currents must arise wherever the sea surface slopes, his concepts concerning the character of these currents are entirely in error. In one place he states that “the currents will flow towards the low places”; in another, that, owing to the rotation of the earth, a current running towards the north in the Northern Hemisphere will be deflected 45° to the right and run towards the northeast. Both statements are wrong. At the initial stage, when a slope is being built up the current will flow from high to low, but in a very short time it will, in the Northern Hemisphere, be deflected 90° to the right (in the Southern Hemisphere, 90° to the left), and will run parallel to the contour lines of the sea surface. Furthermore, the concept of a “head” is in general not applicable, owing to the dominating effect of the earth’s rotation, and a current cannot, therefore, exert a “pressure” against a coast. It is well to be familiar with these elementary facts before undertaking a discussion of ocean currents.
Mr. Leypoldt’s paper also contains many contradictory statements and erroneous conclusions of minor importance.
The main criticism to his paper is that the fundamentals of his reasoning are not in agreement with the established concepts of hydrodynamics.
Harry Leypoldt—Dr. Sverdrup, with his usual kindness, has sent me a copy of the criticism of “Currents in Los Angeles Harbor and Vicinity” which he submits for the “Discussions” section of the Proceedings, and I request the inclusion of my rebuttal of his viewpoint at the same time.
I quoted Dr. George F. McEwen, of Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California), on page 690 as implying the wind as insufficient cause to account for upwelling, and on page 691 quoted Dr. Tage Skogsberg of Hopkins Marine Station (Stanford University) at greater length on the same point. Also Dr. Skogsberg required a “pressure” from below. Neither of these eminent scientists requires, nor would I attempt or presume, a defense for their views.
While I stated the water would flow from the high to the low place, I am sorry any misconception arose regarding the rotational effect of the earth, since I thought it was sufficiently clear that the moving stream, after motion ensued toward the low places, would be deflected to the right. On account of the continental barrier, the closed circulation would not occur, and the “pressure” required by Dr. Skogsberg would result. I followed Dr. Skogsberg’s nomenclature for the necessary cause for upwelling.
Also when we attempt to explain the rise in mean sea level by an increase in temperature, we introduce a greater difficulty in the local conditions. Were temperature the governing factor, as stated by Dr. Sverdrup, when the rise in sea level occurred due to the increased volume caused by expansion of the sea water, we should expect a corresponding lowering of the density. However, as shown in Fig. 2, page 687, the density increases as the temperature increases. Then to attribute the increase in sea level height to increased temperature would violate an “established concept of hydrodynamics.”
The following can be plotted on the same graphs by interested readers, using each division as 2°C:
The minimum temperature occurs in January and the maximum in August. The minimum density occurs in February, maximum in August. For La Jolla salinities, the minimum is in March and the maximum in June and July. Also the dip in the salinity—density graphs for October cannot be correlated to a “temperature” variation as the cause. An influx of “foreign” water is required, as set forth by me.
A Worm’s-Eye View of Promotion
Lieutenant (j.g.) M. Sunderland, U. S. Navy.—Most of the comments, criticisms, and suggestions on our system (or lack of system) of promotion seem to come from the top half of the officers, the admirals and captains down to the lieutenant commanders. But the promotion situation is really far more important to the younger officer, because he needs promotion and increased pay both for his present needs and eventual retirement, and because the young officer has many years to serve with whatever system is set up. The admirals may have the experience to know what the Navy needs, but the young officer knows what he needs and here is a young officer’s solution, a worm’s-eye view.
As a young officer I have several purposes in being in the Navy: I earn my living; I want a steady job during good behavior until old enough to retire from active life; I want to get reasonable advances in rank and pay; and I would like to be an admiral if my capabilities permit.
As an employer, the Navy wants several things: the best possible officers, particularly at the top, and to maintain an able, contented corps of officers at minimum cost.
The present selection system probably retains the best available officers for command rank but it fails in many other respects:
- Does not offer reasonable prospects of long service to a young officer.
- Retires many officers too young, and with insufficient pay to exist without working, yet rather old to enter business.
- Injures morale due to the uncertainties of promotion and retention.
- Swells the retired list.
- Wastes valuable experience in the persons of the officers retired.
- May eventually lower the average ability of those entering the Naval Academy.
To meet the conflicting needs of the Navy and of the individual officer and to remedy the faults enumerated above, I propose the following system:
- Vacancies in the ranks of lieutenant, lieutenant commander, and commander to be filled 50 per cent by seniority and 50 per cent by selection from among all those who have served 5 or more years in the lower grade. Officers promoted in any one year to retain their relative positions among themselves regardless of which method put them on the promotion list. No officer to be forced to retire for being passed over any number of times, but the limits for unselected captains to be age 57or 36 years’ service (whichever comes first); for commander, 51 and 30; for lieutenant commander, 45 and 25; for lieutenant, 39 and 20.
- Promotion to lieutenant junior grade and captain and admiral to be the same as at present.
- Each selection board submit secretly to the Secretary of the Navy, and to the officers listed, names of officers eligible for promotion but considered by the board to be unfit for promotion. Such listing by two boards in any one grade to require retirement.
Let’s see how such a system might work in the case of two young graduates of the Naval Academy class of a.d. 2000. Ensign Brilliant is smart, able, attractive personality, and in all respects a fine officer. Ensign Slow, on the other hand, is rather dull, no personality, slow in thought and action. Both are 21 years old and stand about 100 in their class.
In 2003, both are promoted to lieutenant junior grade, and both are eligible for promotion to lieutenant in 2005. Brilliant and Slow then stand about 450 from the top of the junior grade lieutenant list, but only 400 are to be promoted that year. So the 200 junior grade lieutenants standing at the top of the list are put at the top of the years promotion list, leaving 200 vacancies to be filled by selection from all the remaining junior lieutenants of 5 years’ service. The board picks Brilliant but passes Slow. During the next year, Brilliant makes' lieutenant while Slow, now about 200 from the top of the list, is placed on the next promotion list by seniority and is finally promoted, a year later than Brilliant and 250 numbers junior to him.
Jumping to the year 2011, Brilliant has just become eligible for promotion but Slow has another year before his 5 years as lieutenant are up. True to form, Brilliant, though 800 numbers down on the lieutenants list is selected in 2011 and promoted to lieutenant commander in 2012. Slow, on the other hand, fails of selection in 2012 and again in 2013, finally making lieutenant commander by seniority in 2014, just two years behind Brilliant.
By 2017, Brilliant is eligible for commander and having lived up to his name is selected and promoted in 2018, just 18 years after graduation, age 39. Slow, continuing his barely satisfactory record, becomes eligible for promotion in 2019 but fails of selection in 2019, 2020, and 2021, finally becoming commander by seniority in 2022, four years behind Brilliant.
In 2025 Brilliant is selected for captain and makes his number in 2026, age 47 with 17 years of service remaining. Slow, however, is not reached by the selection board till 2029, and being passed over then and in 2030 is then forced to retire on 30 years’ service, age 51.
All this is much simplified and theoretical, but it shows the general workings of the scheme. It should please all concerned:
Brilliant because he got to the top in a hurry,
Slow because he held his job for 30 years and retired at 51 with reasonable retired pay,
Navy Department because Brilliant is a smart young captain and Slow used his years of experience to carry him through years of service instead of retirement,
Congress because the retired list was not swelled by Slow as a young man.
The principle in the case of Slow is that an officer can often make up for a lack of mental agility with an oversupply of experience and that the Navy can use less brainy officers in the lower ranks provided they do not block the promotion of the future admirals. There is a real use for this class of experienced officer in many routine positions where more promising officers can be released for more important duties.
I have tried to present the idea as simply as possible; no doubt many changes would be needed to fit such a plan to the Navy. The principle is the thing, a combination of promotion by seniority and by selection, to meet the divergent desires of the Navy Department for the selection of its leaders and the young officer’s desire for security.
Irish Pennants
Lieutenant R. T. Sutherland, Jr., (C.C.), U. S. Navy.—The double-eagle formerly used on the Russian standard originated with the emperors of the Orient to symbolize their claim to rule both the Eastern and Western empires . . . The great galley Hiero, built by Archimedes, and that of Ptolemy Philopator, are said to have had 40 banks of oars to the side. No explanation is offered of the method of arrangement ... In ancient times, the galley oarsman was once considered to hold an honorable position. Trojan youth, according to Virgil, practiced continually at the oar . . . By Act of Congress of May 3, 1855, it was ordered that all passenger vessels with a capacity for 100 passengers must be provided with two ventilators, one at each end, and that one of them must be provided with an exhausting cowl . . . Prior to the outbreak of the War of 1812, the number of impressed Americans serving aboard British men-of-war was seldom less than the entire number of seamen in the United States Navy. Lord Mansfield considered impressment to have been “deduced from that trite maxim of the constitutional law of England, ‘that private mischief had better be submitted to than that public detriment and inconvenience should ensue’.” . . . Legend tells us that the famed Inchcape Bell, supposedly installed by the abbots of the ancient monastery of Aberbrothrock to warn mariners of their danger, was stolen by a pirate, who, with his ship and crew, was afterwards wrecked upon that very rock... The first American lighthouse, on Little Brewster Island in Boston Harbor, was supported by “an impost of 1 pence per ton inward and 1 pence per ton outward” on all passing vessels except coasters, which fees were payable to the collector of imposts at Boston . . . The Black Prince, son of Edward III of England, bore a cheerful weapon, variously termed “Holy-Water Sprinkler” or “Blood-Spiller,” depending upon the end from which seen. It consisted of a cylindrical iron mace on the end of a stout staff, belted by two rings of spikes, and pierced to form four barrels capable of being discharged in some manner.