[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 15.12.16: Chillit - "Not happy Jan"

Please read the following article from the Guardian yesterday (14/12/16):

Oceanographers offer clues to Malaysian airlines crash
Deploying drifters and using computer models, oceanographers identified the most likely crash area for flight MH370   
     
[/url]  Officers carrying pieces of debris from an unidentified aircraft apparently washed ashore in Saint-Andre de la Reunion, eastern La Reunion island, France, 29 July 2015. Photograph: Raymond Wae Tion/EPA

John Abraham
Wednesday 14 December 2016 22.00 AEDT

No doubt nearly everyone is familiar with the story. In early 2014, Malaysian flight MH370 left Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, on a flight to China. The flight disappeared from communication and was never found; despite great search efforts.

It isn’t that there is no evidence of the crash. In July of last year, a portion of a wing was found near Madagascar and Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. Since then, other debris has been found in the Western Indian Ocean.

Using the location of where the wing debris were found, oceanographers from University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain), the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the University of Miami, University of Hawaii, and the Commonwealth Science Industrial and Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia have a lead. Their hypothesis is published in the Journal of Operational Oceanography and can be found here.

The authors used two sets of data to help track the possible paths of the debris. First, they took advantage of observations from NOAA’s Global Drifter Array. These drifters have a surface float and an anchor or drogue that extend to 15m deep, and a suite of sensors that communicate via satellite their location and parameters like ocean currents, surface ocean temperature, pressure, wind, and salinity. In the Indian Ocean alone, there are approximately 400 of these drifters at any time, providing continuous ocean measurement information. At some point the drifters loose their drogue and these are the ones used in this study as they better simulate debris dynamics. 

   

Deployment of a drifter. Photograph: NOAA

The authors tracked drifters that were released or that traveled near the search area in the southeastern Indian Ocean. Several of these drifters traveled across the Indian Ocean to the final destination near Reunion Island, very near where the wing debris was found, and the duration it took the drifters to make their trek was similar to that of the debris.
 
   

Diagram of a drifter. Illustration: NOAA

In addition, the authors used a computer model of ocean currents from the University of Hawaii. This model incorporated the surface ocean winds and provided a realistic simulation of ocean currents during and after the plane crash. Using these computer-derived currents, the scientists released thousands of replica drifters to see where they traveled.

By combining the real trajectories from actual instruments with the simulated trajectories, scientists were able to identify the location where a crash was most likely, shown in the image below.
  

Trajectories calculated from computer simulations. Illustration: NOAA

More recent debris discoveries confirm the general westward drift predictions from the computer program and analysis. While the assessments from this study are interesting in that they are related to the MH370 accident, the techniques that the researchers developed can be used for other ocean-debris scenarios and are useful both for basic research as well as more tangible applications for societal benefits, such as search and rescue efforts, oil spills, and fish larval transports.

I contacted author Joaquin Trinanes to ask about the difficulties of this project and its importance. He told me:

There are many factors that affect the trajectories and distribution of ocean debris. A critical aspect is related to the exposure of the floating objects to the wind, which can greatly impact the forecast of the location of the debris. It is challenging to solve but imperative with the advance in the developments of the observational and modeling efforts.

 
 
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/14/oceanographers-offer-clues-to-malaysian-airlines-crash#img-5]
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Dr. Joaquin Trinanes
His colleague, Gustavo Goni added,

Studies like the one carried out here shows the value of maintaining a global ocean observing system to monitor different parameters in the oceans, such as ocean currents in this case, but of others like sea surface temperature, winds, salinity, oxygen, etc.; which are key to understand how the ocean is linked to weather, climate, and ecosystems. In addition, this monitoring also serves for other direct applications, such as debris tracking, oil spill monitoring, fisheries stock assessments, sea level rise, etc.

I think it is really great to solve a basic research problem but also to connect it to practical applications. Great work, folks.

Now for those of you have been following the considerable efforts of Mike Chillit to research and model, then openly document his findings in this particular area, will more than understand why it is that MC is - "Not happy Jan!!"

For those who don't understand well perhaps I will let the man himself spell it out...

MikeChillit
3h ago

This article violates copyrights held by Mike Chillit. The findings are correct because they are my findings, published extensively on Twitter and my own website throughout most of 2016. My personal goal is to help find MH370, and I have worked very hard toward that end. Beginning in 2014 ATSB, David Griffin, and his employer, CSIRO, claimed debris would hit Java and Sumatra. But when the flaperon washed up on Reunion Island instead in July 2015, they quickly amended their predictions and claimed the earlier prediction was the work of an employee who had been fired. But they insisted they were still searching the correct area 2,000 km south of the actual crash site. Griffin's boss, Niel Gordon has published a tour de force on how not to do Bayesian Statistics, also claiming the plane could only be in the now thoroughly debunked search area. The only distinguishing feature of all work flowing out of David Griffin's and CSIRO's offices for the past three years is that they have been consistently wrong about everything.

I communicated my concerns with Griffin early in 2016, and explained why his earlier theories have been wrong. I have explained where the plane must be and how the currents work west of Australia. As unbelievable as it is, Griffin insisted the plane went down in the empty search area. I have copies of his email. I can show you precisely what Griffin said, and it is obvious none of this stems from his own work. It is unconscionable to me that Griffin and his peers have lifted huge portions of my work to smooth over their own inability to understand the south Indian Ocean. (I was also told by Scripps Oceanography early on that debris would drift from Perth to the Mascarenes, so it wasn't just Griffin and CSIRO who had no idea how debris would move west of Australia.

I insist that this article be retracted and rewritten, and that I receive an apology. More importantly, family members of those lost deserve apologies for the shoddy response Australia has given to the search effort for almost three years. This is just another example of how little respect those families have received.

As a footnote, the real story now is that debris from MH370 washed up on St. Brandon island well north of Reunion Island before Australia sent the first deep sea sonar vessel to the search area. Malaysia and Australia should have known the plane could not possibly have gone down where they were searching, but they didn't take time to investigate other possibilities. And it wouldn't have cost a penny.

MTF...P2