# Talk:Walter Munk

The newly added text here is not very well written and appears not to agree with the information in the relevant article.  Reading the material here it sounds like (evil) "Green Peace" [sic] shut the experiment down, while the main article is much more equivocal and suggests that the investigation into ATOC's impacts found that they were minor (despite, as implied here, being stacked with whale-lovers).  Perhaps if the newly added text had some sources we'd be able to judge its accuracy?  --PLUMBAGO 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Having dug around a bit more, it transpires that, though initially stalled by concerns about cetaceans, the ATOC programme ran from 2002 until 2006 (and produced valuable data for climate change studies).  Further, Munk and colleagues even had a big review paper on it just this year ...
Dushaw, B.D., Worcester, P.F., Munk, W.H., et al. (2009).  A decade of acoustic thermometry in the North Pacific Ocean.  J. Geophys. Res. 114, C07021, doi:10.1029/2008JC005124.
This suggests that the recent edits are factually questionable (let alone their tone, which is POV).  I'll try to edit the text in the coming weeks to better conform to what actually happened with ATOC.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've not worked for the ATOC project since 1995. The project to which your refer is NPAL, in the North Pacific,
http://npal.ucsd.edu/thermometry/index.htm.  The permits allowed a single transmission every 4 days. They were using the same 75Hz source as the original ATOC. As far as being factually correct ... well after reading the crap in the Carl Wunsch biography section I'm simply NOT bothering with crappipedia  any more. Do what u like. Ketabatic (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update.  Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I might be a bit too close to this material (conflict of interest), but I've removed paragraphs that were just rather erroneous/inappropriate.  It would be quite a bit of work to correct, and it seemed to me that material was a little off the point for this biography.  There is a sordid story to tell wrt Munk and the marine mammal people - but I know of no reference that tells it (a paper by John Potter comes to mind [1]).  There is a wikilink to ATOC that seems sufficient; accurate, referenced edits there might be more appropriate.  NPAL was indeed the successor to ATOC; the two are not unrelated.  There are errors throughout wikipedia to be sure, but we strive to work collectively to achieve nonPOV accuracy, however unattainable that may be...  And the Wunsch article is indeed rather awful.  Bdushaw (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent.  I think the material that you've deleted was that added by Ketabatic, and that which I was questioning.  The sources I subsequently read (including one by a familiar-sounding B.D. Dushaw) pointed to this material being inaccurate, on top of its inappropriate tone.  Anyway, glad to have this cleared up.  While the article is still less than satisfactory, it's a lot better.  Thanks.  --PLUMBAGO 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to be cleaned up regarding the interchangeable use of the terms tomography and thermometry. Ocean tomography experiments were begun in the 1950s, by such people as George Veronis. The Heard Is experiment did not involve 2D deconvolution of multiple sound sources. The T in ATOC is "Thermometry". The OAT book is a general treatise on ocean acoustic tomography, and is not specifically about ATOC. The edition was also edited and peer-reviewed by a large group, so it's a bit more authoritative than a simple book. I have added a bit about the ATOC experiment. Unfortunately the original technical docs relating to duty cycles and transmit powers have long been hidden away by the institutions involved. Munk gave many public talks on ATOC during the 90s and my figures have been taken from there. You may be able to glean these figures from the ATO edition. Plumbago, I might be so bold as to suggest that if you did not attend one of these presentations you probably should not be commenting about ATOC!220.244.75.163 (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent edit by this author.  As I noted, the edits do not appear to be neutral (a political agenda is evident), are off topic (Munk has nothing to do with wind turbines), and certainly require supporting references.  The comments above do not seem at all correct to me.  As always, supporting references are required, particularly for a biography of a living person.  (A recollected talk by Munk does not meet this standard.)  Bdushaw (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


#### Shutdown of ATOC
HIFT and ATOC were shutdown circa 1992. Green Peace kicked up a stink when one of their geniuses did not understand the the various dB scales used in acoustics. Fed Govt of Australia withdrew its participation, and would not allow Heard Is. to be used. The present Hawaiian "Line" experiments are very limited. The project was under the ownership of the US Navy, as the receivers are still classified. After the media outcry/lunacy, the Navy quashed/hid most of the technical reports. Only one brief reference of this history exists, in a Master's thesis online at MIT.220.244.246.49 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 

http://www.crafoordprize.se/events/crafoorddays2010.4.5ce3bd8012d79a5929580004998.html
Would someone who can edit please fix? --Spoofed IP 173.161.195.122 (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There' a bit of humbug in the article about "Stagnating Oceans", although the term is not actually used. Fluid Dynamics 101: a stratified fluid in a 3D irregular domain cannot be at rest, since the diffusion and hydrostatic boundary conditions are in conflict. More importantly, the latitudinal differential heating will always keep the ocean in motion, even in the complete absence of an atmosphere. This stagnation nonsense has been invented twits trying to explain the the carbon "death" layer.
Munk's inviscid solution is not the only non-stable solution. Any non-linear treatment of turbulent viscosity will yield a non-steady solution. Any sort of Del^2n viscosity has a stable solution and finite scaling width.220.244.246.49 (talk)

The latest additions relating the Spiesberger measurements are not quite
appropriate.  This is a biography of Munk, not Spiesberger.  Munk's long-time
collaborator Worcester has been deleted.  An ONR contract is not a valid
Wikipedia reference.  The Heard Island signals were not unstable, it was
just nine days of data from a moving ship.  I know the origins of these
POVs, however, and I contemplate how to restore the text that was there
before, while acknowledging Spiesberger's contributions.  Bdushaw (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the Spiesberger material over to the article on ocean acoustic tomography where it is better suited.  The "Main article" link should encourage readers to go there.  I note that Spiesberger was Munk's student (or of that group anyways). Bdushaw (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Ocean tomography was first investigated by George Veronis in the early 50s. (In fact when going out west to use ENIAC, the light plane he charted crashed.) Veronis was also the fist civilian given access to the North Atlantic array. Wunsch and Munk invented the ATOC Thermometry project in the mid 70s. (In fact, they sat down in Walker Hall and drank coffee all afternoon while coming up with the idea.) Note that the SOFAR channel was know to various militaries from WW1 onwards, but SOFAR did not become widely known until after WW2. I have changed Tomography in ATOC to Thermometry. Their book is called "Ocean Acoustic Tomography".27.33.243.64 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed these unsourced statements below:

The propagation mode was the SOFAR channel, being the depth at which the vertical density gradient is greatest. Longitudinal acoustic pressure waves are locked at a depth of some 50m above and below. Both the receiver and transmitter must lie within the SOFAR. The celerity and dispersion are functions of temperature and less so to salinity.
To my knowledge, none of these statements are quite correct.  Perhaps a discussion of how tomography works is in order, however.  Bdushaw (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Walter Munk. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1993/1/1993_1_54.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Walter Munk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216072240/http://scilib.ucsd.edu/sio/archives/siohstry/munk-biog.html to http://scilib.ucsd.edu/sio/archives/siohstry/munk-biog.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023085326/http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k15_b_walter/prf_e.html to http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k15_b_walter/prf_e.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone provide a recent citation that supports that he is a Secretary of the Navy/Chief of Naval Operations Oceanography Chair at SIO? The only article I found that said this is from 2001, before he was an emeritus. I found information that John Orcutt is currently A Secretary of the Navy/Chief of Naval Operations Oceanography Chair, but it doesn't clarify if this position is held by more than one person at once.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.239.112.44 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC) 

I found what I was looking for. In 2014, he himself said that he held that chair position during an interview for the Navy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7DtckkgvWQ 132.239.112.44 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Walter Munk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017073531/http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3027/935 to http://www.ostina.org/content/view/3027/935/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126133745/http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6809 to http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6809
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323035643/http://www.tos.org/awards_honors/munk_award.html to http://www.tos.org/awards_honors/munk_award.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The claim of being "the first to show rigorously why one side of the Moon always faces the Earth" is dubious. This has been explained much earlier by John Herschel and Nicholas Mercator ([2]) and is mentioned by Jules Verne. Brandmeistertalk   18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

These are not explanations as to WHY one side of the moon always faces the earth, or more particularly, why the rotation rate of the moon is always fixed to make this so.  The earlier "explanations" were superficial.  Munk's explanation was the first to be rigorous - why the moon's face was locked towards the Earth.  Bdushaw (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
According to this, "The first solution to the riddle of the invariability of the lunar face in which the physics was correct appeared in the Appendix to Nicholas Mercator’s Institutionum Astronomicarum libri duo" (London, 1676, pp. 285–8). So Munk's claim needs further investigation at best - many other lunar phenomena have been known since earlier times. Brandmeistertalk   11:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
While I think you are correct that a proper citation for this claim is necessary, a claim from 1676 is...probably not right.  That said, a proper citation has been curiously hard to find - I suspect it lies within the Munk and McDonald book itself, already cited although improperly, which I do not have.  There is this link which lists a contribution to tidal locking as a basis for Munk's National Medal of Science.  There are numerous citations of a popular/news type to support the claim, but a proper scientific article would be better.  Bdushaw (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A brief review of this section by a knowledgeable associate suggests it has general problems.  For example, the moon does have a fluid core.  See: this  I suggest a general rewrite, but I don't yet know how to do it.  The subject (Rotation of the Earth) is one of Munk's major accomplishments.  Bdushaw (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and I am inclined to just simplify and trim down the section until we can sort out the story.  The book "Rotation of the Earth" is a well-recognized, classic review monograph on the subject.  Bdushaw (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd agree on trimming, also because citing Munk's article alone runs into WP:INDEPENDENT. Brandmeistertalk   10:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been editing the article for a week now, with particular attention to the supporting citations, and I have yet to find a good reference supporting the assertion about tidal locking.  I have one inquiry pending (but not much hope).  I tentatively conclude that Brandmeister was correct to challenge the assertion, and, further, suspect the entry may be either one of those "monkey wrench" entries that some people are wont to make, or someone making the entry particularly carelessly.  I haven't the energy to go back in the record to determine when it was first made and who made it.  The text is still in the article, commented out, but perhaps after a suitable waiting period, we might delete it altogether.   The incident may be another lesson on how erroneous entries made into Wikipedia propagate throughout the internet, until the erroneous articles are used to support the original erroneous entry! Bdushaw (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about the title of Munk's 1986 Bakerian Lecture.  I've added a citation to a paper in PhilTransRoySoc that seems unequivocable, but there is also this link to the Royal Society webpage on Munk that has the title "Acoustic Monitoring of Ocean Gyres".  (Could he have given a talk on one topic, but written about another?) Bdushaw (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, this link to an AMS conference programme.  Looks like Munk may have given the actual talk on Acoustic Monitoring of Ocean Gyres, but given the paper on the Ships from Space topic.  (Now what do we do???)  Bdushaw (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I've mostly wrapped up my contributions for this round.  There are a few tasks I list here, should anyone like to pick them up:  (1) The lede needs development - it should be a very brief summary of the article in its entirety. (2) The Personal life section needs some work.  I've thought about adding a new Career section for JASON and the Navy chair, etc. (3) There needs a new section under Research on internal waves (!) and the Garrett-Munk spectrum.  The influence of John Tukey for statistical knowledge/ideas should be mentioned. Bdushaw (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Walter Munk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) 05:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I have started to review this page. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is well written and well sourced, aside from a few minor issues I'm fixing as I go along. However, I can't access most of "Seventy Years of Exploration in Oceanography". Where I can't find an alternative source, I'm willing to take it on good faith, but I would like to see the chapter for each citation specified. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The 70 Years book is available by PDF, legitimately for free, I believe, from here. Bdushaw (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was about to remove a "duplicate" citation to "70 Years", when I noted it had the chapter title.  I take it you would like to use a separate citation for each chapter of the book?  So, the citations to this book presently without a chapter, should be changed to include a citation with the chapter title?  I think that could be helpful.  Check the PDF above to see if you still would like to do that.  In the Discovery of the neutron article we used a citation system that would give the appropriate page numbers to a citation such as this. Bdushaw (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, in my first comment above, I suggested chapters, but using page numbers would be even better. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I will try a few citations with page numbers, and we can decide what's best to do.  I suspect page numbers with a single citation to the book might work best.  You've added the PDF link to the citation, I see...curiously there has been a bot going around removing such links as being redundant with the citation information.  The bot vexes me, since it removes links/access to free material, whereas the ISBN number, say, just sends you to, e.g., Amazon.  We'll see if the new link escapes the bot... Bdushaw (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
That kind of edit can always be reverted. Also, another bot has recently been "bluelinking books for verifiability" (e.g., this edit). RockMagnetist(talk) 18:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We have not yet agreed on a desirable format for citations to this book...absent further input, I'll proceed with the addition of page numbers in the citations - and removal of the citations to the book chapter(s). Bdushaw (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome to use any format you like as long as it's consistent. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I tagged the sentence about the renaming of IGP to IGPP because I couldn't see any details on it in the two IGPP citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)  Done: I fixed that, and provided an example of how I'd like the chapters of "Seventy Years" to be cited.
Thanks for all the improvements!  I am objecting modestly to the removal of the brief description of the founding of UCSD.  Munk and Revelle were mates, and UCSD was founded at about the same time as IGPP - it is an important background for that 1958 timeframe.  Also about the time Munk became professor at UCSD/SIO, of course. Bdushaw (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no strong objection to putting an improved version of that description in. The sources didn't seem to support Revelle being a major backer of the IGPP campus, and that left a single not very interesting sentence. However, Revelle was largely responsible for turning Scripps into a major research institution, and that is certainly relevant. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reworked the section to include the deleted material.  See how you like it.  It would be worthwhile, perhaps, to establish a Revelle connection to IGPP's founding.  It seems obvious since Revelle was Director of SIO at the time and would have been both informed and supportive to have it go forward, but something more substantive might be useful. Bdushaw (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good! RockMagnetist(talk) 23:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The lede will need proper citations, I've just noticed. Bdushaw (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily - see MOS:CITELEAD. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I read the rest of the article and there were no more issues. It was a pleasure to read this. I was at Scripps myself for a few years and met Walter Munk; he was such a warm, kind individual. Great job! RockMagnetist(talk) 20:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor indicated that the statement in the lede The experiment was criticized by environmental groups, who expected that the loud acoustic signals would adversely affect marine life. had undue weight.  An interesting question.  Firstly, the controversy was a major phase in Munk's career - the controversy began during the HIFT experiment and continued during ATOC - perhaps spanning 10-15 years.  I included the statement partly because most of the general public who know about Munk likely learned about him as a consequence of the incident.  There would be a good case to include a separate section on the issue, but that would perhaps indeed be undue weight, it is a difficult issue to support with citations, and it is a Pandora's Box of a Can of Worms - the issue has been highly politicized.  The article now includes several citations to the news reports on the incident in the tomography section. Bdushaw (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: It feels like that instead of like 3 sentences of content in the lead -- this might be one. I.e. something like, "Though well regarded for his science, some of Munk's later research into underwater acoustics led to controversy among environmentalist who described it as disrupting marine mammals." --- but the current coverage is way out of proportion to the amount of coverage elsewhere in the article and skews the interpretation of him. Sadads (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Interesting - you were referring to the previous three sentences.  Munk's interest in acoustical measurements spanned 40 or more years!  The three sentences in question refer to ocean acoustic tomography, which is described by that section in the article.  Indeed one of Munk's books was on that topic.  Perhaps the resolution is to rewrite those sentences in some way to indicate that better.  (Your proposed text is ... right out ... with all due respect!) Munk had a great pride in the HIFT experiment - indeed the Walter Munk Medal was engraved with a global figure of the experiment. Bdushaw (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I've revised the lede per the above, though I am uncertain of the text I wrote.  Perhaps just a first draft.  Bdushaw (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)