The idea of a cyclone being a “wave” on a front was questioned ( Willett 1926). Monthly Weather Review editor Alfred Henry argued that the different geographies between Norway and the United States meant that the Norwegian cyclone model was not necessarily applicable ( Henry 1922a, b), as discussed in Newton and Rodebush Newton (1999). Specifically, “Due largely to the absence of definite guidance on how to locate ‘fronts’ on the weather map, considerable misunderstanding of polar front methods has arisen” (translator’s note in Björkdal 1931, p. The conceptual model presented in Bjerknes (1919) and Bjerknes and Solberg (1922) lacked sufficient observational evidence to justify their model, having “excessive claims and oversimplification” ( Douglas 1952, p. His contributions included identifying how deformation results in frontogenesis and frontolysis, classifying the influence of aerosols on visibility, and explaining the role of the ambient conditions in the onset of drizzle as opposed to rain showers-a distinction that led the formulation of the Wegener–Bergeron–Findeisen process.ĭavies (1997, his section 4.4) has summarized many of the objections to the new model at that time, but quite frankly the Bergen School members “were trying to market an incomplete product” ( Friedman 1989, p. Major interlaced themes of Bergeron’s study were the first comprehensive description of the Bergen methods: a vigorous defense of cyclogenesis as primarily a lower-tropospheric process as opposed to an upper-tropospheric–lower-stratospheric one a nuanced explanation of the assertion that meteorology constituted a distinct and special scientific discipline and, very understandably, a thorough account of Bergeron’s own contributions to the Bergen School. Here, an accessible and annotated English translation is provided along with a succinct overview of this seminal study. His doctoral thesis, written in German, was published as a journal article in Geofysiske Publikasjoner in 1928. Bergeron’s research output in the 1920s was aimed at addressing these concerns. Bjerknes and Solberg-were inhibiting worldwide adoption. Concerns and criticisms of the methods-in part from the lack of referencing to prior studies, overly simplified conceptual models, and lack of real data in papers by J. However, the eventual success of these so-called Bergen methods of synoptic analysis was not guaranteed. Tor Bergeron was a key member of the Bergen School of Meteorology that developed some of the most influential contributions to synoptic analysis in the twentieth century: airmass analysis, polar-front theory, and the Norwegian cyclone model. Hyperbolic projection of a flat symmetrical v field ( Bergeron 1928, Fig. (b) Potential temperature at 3 km over De Bilt, Netherlands, during 1980.īergeron’s composite chart for 0700 UTC ( Bergeron 1928, Plate IV, Map 2).ĭeformation field v vs entropy field Θ. (a) Potential temperature at 3 km over Soesterberg, Netherlands, during 1922 ( Bergeron 1928, Fig. (a) Schematic for diabatic influence in a cold air mass (KM) in winter and (b) schematic for diabatic influence in a warm air mass (WM) in winter (adapted from Bergeron 1928, Figs. The high-resolution scan of the photograph was kindly provided by Mirella Eredia (granddaughter of #26) surnames mostly follow Börngen et al. Underlined names are those authors who are cited in Bergeron (1928). Numbering is in five columns, from left to right, with the following annotations for each person number, first name, surname, (age at conference, country of work-not necessarily nationality-and lifespan). Participants at the 11th meeting of the International Aerological Commission, Leipzig, 29 Aug to. Tor Bergeron photograph around the time of writing his dissertation (Photographer: likely Elfriede Bergeron Schinze) (courtesy of ).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |