In Section 1.1 we showed that the evolution of the surface air temperature is determined not only by one (inherent to the atmosphere) time scale but depends crucially on the time scales of the upper mixed layer (UML) and deep ocean layer (DOL) interacting with each other and with the atmosphere. This consideration is the basis of the box thermodynamic model suggested by Kagan et al. (1990) and is intended to simulate the seasonal variability of the climatic system of the Northern Hemisphere.
The seasonal time scale of variability predetermines the necessity of singling out the UML as an independent subsystem with all consequences arising with respect to the description of the processes at the UML-DOL interface.
We approximate the seasonal thermocline separating the UML and the DOL by a temperature jump, and single out two periods within the annual cycle - periods of falling and rising of the lower boundary of the UML. We will also suppose that an increase in UML thickness occurs exclusively owing to the entrainment of colder water from the DOL. The last condition is equivalent to the assumption that the eddy heat flux at the lower boundary of the UML differs from zero (it is used for heating water entrained from below) when UML thickness increases, and otherwise is equal to zero when entrainment is absent. Vanishing of this heat flux means that in a period of rising of the lower boundary of the UML any heat exchange between the UML and DOL stops and within the UML a new (shallower) thermocline is formed preventing heat penetration into the lower part of the UML. But isolation of part of the UML and its joining with the DOL are tantamount to the assignment of an equivalent heat flux at the upper boundary of the DOL defined by the condition of heat conservation in the UML-DOL system. In other words, within the framework of the adopted parametrization for the heat exchange at the UML-DOL interface, the heat transfer from the UML into the DOL occurs only in the period of rising, and is absent in the period of falling, of the lower boundary of the UML.
Another factor controlling the thermal regime of the DOL when considering this layer as a whole is an ordered vertical transfer of cold deep water created by upwelling. According to Munk (1966) the balance of these two factors -the heat transfer from above and the cold transfer from below - provides the existence of the main thermocline in the ocean. But owing to the law of mass conservation the vertical velocity integrated over the ocean area must vanish. Hence it is necessary to suggest the existence in the ocean of a downwelling area with a degenerate main thermocline. From general considerations confirmed by the results of laboratory experiments using revolving tanks, it is clear that the most intense downwelling has to be timed to an area of cold deep water formation and that this area and the area of upwelling must be connected to each other by the cold water transport from the first area into the second one in the deep layer, and by an opposite transport of warm water in the surface layer. These are the major prerequisites used in the design of the model in question.
The conditional concepts as to the character of the meridional circulation in the ocean form the basis of the model. That is, it is suggested that the area of upwelling is located in temperate and low latitudes and that in this area the upwelling is regulated by the inflow of cold deep waters from high latitudes and by the sinking of warm surface waters. Calculated results of the meridional heat transport in the ocean (see Section 2.3) and observed spatial distributions of the potential temperature, salinity and phosphate concentration obtained within the framework of GEOSECS and TTO programmes testify to such a meridional circulation cell.
Three areas can be singled out in the ocean - an area of temperate and low latitudes (hereinafter the upwelling area), the area of cold deep water formation in high latitudes and the polar ocean area covered with ice. It is assumed that in the upwelling area, where ocean warming occurs, the UML and DOL are separated by the clearly marked seasonal thermocline preventing heat exchange between them (in the polar ocean this function is performed by the halocline), and in the area of cold deep water formation both layers unite as a result of strong cooling accompanied by the development of intensive convection. Similarly, two zonal areas are singled out in the atmosphere: the area of temperate and low latitudes stretching over the upwelling area and part of the land contiguous with it, and the area of high latitudes located over the remaining part of the land, over the area of cold deep water formation and the polar ocean. As a result the atmosphere and the ocean are represented in the form of a system of seven boxes (Figure 5.4): two atmospheric boxes (northern and southern) and five ocean boxes (the UML and DOL in the upwelling area and in the polar ocean, and the area of cold deep water formation).


Inhabits rocky areas of large rivers, including areas of whitewater.
4.8″ (12cm) is the official figure, although it's reported to grow much larger.
A biotope aquarium would consist of a sandy substrate littered with smooth, water worn rocks. Arrange these to provide some hiding places for the fish, and try to provide a moderate current through the tank. It can also be kept in planted aquaria as it will not chew leaves.
pH: No precise details available, although at least one batch of fish was collected in water of around neutral pH. Assume a range between 6.5-7.5.
Hardness: Again, no accurate data is available. Somewhere between 5-12°H is suggested.
Relishes all kinds of shellfish, as well as worms and other live and frozen foods. It should be fed snails and unshelled shellfish (such as crab legs, mussels etc.) regularly, in order to maintain it's sharp teeth. As with other puffers, these grow continuously and become a problem for the fish if they are not kept ground down.
A generally aggressive and intolerant species that really should be kept alone. Its beak-like mouth can easily bite chunks from other fish, or in extreme cases rip them to pieces. It's also very aggressive towards conspecifics and should never be kept in groups.
Males are said to have a greater number of cirri (the hair-like growths that characterise this species) than females, but this is unconfirmed as others report that females do not possess cirri at all.
Not thought to have been achieved in aquaria, probably due to its temperament (and pricetag!) restricting the number of hobbyists prepared to make a serious attempt.
The hairy puffer is rare in the hobby, and tends to command a relatively high price when it is available. The exact nature of the cirri that cover the fish is unknown, but would appear to be related to gender, or possibly camouflage. It can change colour depending on its mood, and, uniquely among puffers, is completely scaleless.


text:
12 February 2016 22 February 2021 FameThemesLeave a comment
We can review your current situation to provide you with advice tailored to your particular circumstances.
In our experience many people pay too much tax and it is important that your financial position is reviewed to ensure that you don't miss out on opportunities that could reduce your tax liability. Read more "Tax Planning"
Updated: 22 February 2021
Tags: Investment
S Hill & Co Investment Advisers Limited
238 Upper Newtownards Road
Belfast BT4 3EU
T. +44 (0)28 9065 6624
F. +44 (0)28 9065 6634
E. info@investmentdecisions.co.uk
shillandco
www.fergusonhillam.com
www.fsa.gov.uk
www.step.org
Police response to £25,000 fraud branded woeful 22 January 2022
First-time buyer: 'I couldn't keep paying so much rent' 21 January 2022
Firms call for urgent help with energy bills 21 January 2022
The value of investments and the income derived from them may fluctuate and investors may not receive back the amount originally invested. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. YOU MUST CONSIDER THE RISK WARNINGS IN OUR TERMS & CONDITIONS. Please read our PRIVACY STATEMENT before completing any enquiry form or before sending an email to us. S Hill & Co Investment Advisers Limited is a limited company registered in Northern Ireland. Company No. NI622335 Registered Office: 238 Upper Newtownards Road, Belfast, BT4 3EU. S Hill & Co Limited is an appointed representative of Ferguson Hill Asset Management Limited who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority FRN 621997. S Hill & Co Investment Advisers Limited are Members of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners. The FCA do not regulate some forms of Trust and Estate planning. Where you have a complaint or dispute with us and we are unable to resolve this to your satisfaction then we are obliged to offer you the Financial Ombudsman Service to help resolve this. Please see the following link for further details: financial-ombudsman.org.uk.
© S Hill & Co Ltd. Investment Advisors
Pro dark wordpress theme

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
BHP talks up growth amid another Elliott assault
May 17, 2017 NewsBen Creagh Ben Creagh
BHP's Andrew Mackenzie
BHP chief executive officer Andrew McKenzie believes the foundation has been set to grow the company by up to 50 per cent.
Speaking at the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Metals, Mining & Steel Conference, McKenzie said a year ago, at the same event, he outlined ambitious plans to improve returns and grow the value of the company.
"Since that time, we have made consistent progress and we are confident that continued delivery of these plans, from our stronger base today, could grow the value of our company by up to 50 per cent and almost double the return on capital," McKenzie said.
McKenzie highlighted several key contributors that were guiding BHP's growth, such as cost reductions that support a 10 per cent lift in value as the company leverages a simple portfolio, standardised systems and greater connectivity to improve safety and productivity.
Other value adding contributors he mentioned included the release of more latent capacity across the company's portfolio, advances in the operating capability and capital productivity of its shale assets, the above average returns of its growth projects, its petroleum exploration program, and technology initiatives that improve safety, lower costs and unlock resources.
"We have achieved a great deal over the past year but we are not standing still. Our roadmap today contains an enhanced set of opportunities that will see us prosper and grow value per share throughout the cycle, and in multiple price scenarios," McKenzie said.
"Above all, we will remain disciplined, and drive consistent and transparent application of our capital allocation framework, which includes cash returns to shareholders. Our path is deliberate, with value and returns at the centre of everything we do."
Despite BHP's growth path, hedge fund Elliott Associates, which owns about four per cent of BHP through its London listing, has launched a fresh assault on the miner's performance.
In April, the US-based hedge fund urged BHP to change its dual-listed company structure, asset portfolio and capital management.
It suggested BHP should operate as a London-based and -listed company, while also demerging its US petroleum assets into a separate entity listed in New York.
Elliott is now asking for an independent review of BHP's petroleum business with full disclosure of the results.
"We recognise that there are a number of obvious possible solutions to unlock the latent value of BHP's petroleum business, including a sale or demerger of the US petroleum business and a sale or ASX listing for the Australian and other remaining petroleum assets," Elliott said in a statement.
"Our preferred approach is a full or partial demerger of the petroleum business, but in any event the logical next step to unlock optimal value from that business is the strategic review which shareholders have every right to expect."
Elliott has, however, softened its view on BHP needing to restructure, saying it was now open to the company retaining its dual listing in London and Australia.
BHP earlier this week launched a $10 million rebranding campaign, Think Big, where it dropped Billiton from its name after 16 years.
BHP flags shale exit, starts search for buyers
BHP adds 1000 women to workforce
New York, New York! BHP celebrates 30 years in the Big Apple
BHP unveils $US2.46bn plans for copper operation
← Vango Mining, Dampier Gold enter joint venture partnership TerraCom takes ownership of $1 coal mine →


Sermon Title: What Should We Emphasize In Order to Promote True Christianity in This Country?
I "preached" Sunday. (Some say what I do is not really "preaching", but that's another question.) We began with these two lists of questions, and me asking what differences they could detect between the lists as I read them. The congregation had them on a handout so they could follow along.
Here's list #1 – Eight questions to solve (or create?) the "9% problem." These are questions that George Barna (the pollster) used so he could discover how many church attenders actually have a truly Biblical worldview. He concluded that only 9% of professing American Christians do.
1. Do absolute moral truths exist?
2. Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?
3. Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?
4. Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does He still rule it today?
5. Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned?
7. Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?
8. Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?
Here's list #2: – more questions, also difficult, but from the New Testament – from Jesus and the Apostles. The above list piqued my curiosity – I wondered what questions Jesus would be asking if he were circulating among the churches today. ("If he were"??!!) So I went browsing in my Bible. Here are some questions I found in the New Testament.
What differences do you detect between these two lists? We're not being fussy here – just want some feedback / observations. (I learn a lot that way!) I'll comment further in a couple of days or so, and will include 2 or 3 of the responses we got to that query on Sunday morning.
Thank you, Rob, and especially thank you for your length; (makes me feel a little less lonesome;-)). I have considered to stay silent to avoid sounding immature. For by comparison with your report, you will feel, see ro guess the way I deal with the same problems is very much academical, essentially not (yet) exposed to the rough winds of testing these, my faiths down in the deepest, the soberest sphere of reality. But after these explanations, I hope, I may dare to contribute what I think. After all, look back at Thanksgiving day's blog entry (Being Thankful Requires a Little Thought): Thinking is not all, but without the realm of thoughts productively in action, there would not be much thanking too.
First are the questions an affirmative answer to which other people should be induced to abstract from the whole of witness to the Gospel which their live surroudings has to offer, i.e. including from our (Christian) lives.
Second are the questions our (Christian) lives must face once we realize we can't persuade ourselves of the insights listed in the first set of "truths� (cf. remark below) without at the same time persuading others that our lives (still essentially, but hopefully decreasingly) belie them.
To give a catchy formula, perhaps a little dashing, but sincere: First are the questions of the curious, second of the "cure-ye-us� type of Christian.
Nails. That's funny. After i got up from the keys i thought some more (of course) and wondered if what i'm talking about hasn't become my hammer for all those nails i now see. Hmm. At any rate– thanks, and you're welcome.
That last paragraph just absolutely nails it down, Rob. Thanks for the effort.
Man, you asked for it.
In the fall of 1997 i got into an argument with my grandfather's wife. Her ex-husband, by her account, was cruel and intolerable. Her son, on the other hand, was kind-hearted and likable. Sadly, the young man couldn't conquer some problems that landed on him, and he ended up committing suicide.
The dispute was about who was in more trouble. I was standing on two hard-and-fast rules of my religion: if you believe in Jesus, you're on your way, no matter what, and if you kill yourself, you're dead– no matter what. When i asked, she revealed that her ex-husband did in fact attend church, and was a believer, as was her son… So i announced that because her evil husband knew Jesus, he was forgiven– but because her son killed himself, he wasn't. That upset her a lot.
i was 18. Some weeks later, i threw away the first chance i had at getting a degree by dropping out of the tech college where my grandfather had paid out of his pocket to send me. i moved back to Ohio, picked up where i left off with my friends, and within a month got arrested for breaking and entering. That's who knew that believing Jesus rose again was the last step in securing eternal life. i believed in God, moral truth, Satan, creation, the usual. Much good it did.
Now i'm on the opposite side of that argument. How ironic. A man who mistreats his family has 2 choices, repentance or justice. Forgiveness is great but not in the 0% APR Bank of Jesus' Blood no-spending-limit infinite-cash-advance credit sense. Jesus said that unless a man is born again, they can't enter the kingdom. Well, that's what had never happened. Because it did, i understand mercy… the kind of mercy i expect my God to extend toward her son. i never should have gotten a clue.
The questions asked by George Barna should have included the one question that i didn't ask myself: If all of the above are true, do the implications of those beliefs influence every aspect of my human existence? For me, it was obviously no– but i might have argued in my ignorance that it did. i was still dead.
Those 8 questions are easy. Swearing to the right answers is all it takes to enter the Jesus club, and once you're in, you can rest assured. But the 9% who answered correctly aren't the 9% who know Jesus and are known by Him.
When i got that clue, one of the freshest insights was this: If the majority of church people are satisfied that belief is the first and last phase of salvation, then 85% (a number i grabbed out of the air) of Christians aren't. That was because i knew people who in my past had made it a point to adjust their lives to some standard, even though so many people were examples of Christianity as mere recital. i was going by how often i could remember being exposed to the idea that being born again means that God actually changes you. In my memory, the difference between the church-types and the rest of the world was too small.
So how many of the 9% who "answered correctly" are actually alive in Christ? 9%? That would be 0.81% of everyone, but it doesn't reveal that some people who aren't taught the precise wording are still believing in and living for God– even the atheists referred to by Dyson. What the line of questions doesn't reveal, one might accuse it of hiding.
But the standard… some church types are even worse, as revealed by the 10 questions. While the recital is perfect, the implications and their actions are mutated into something hateful and quite unlike Christ. It's no coincidence… in order to release oneself from the implications of the really hard questions, one would limit the importance to those easy questions. It's easy for me to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. i can't prove or disprove it, but it's profound enough to be acceptable. It's not easy to love someone, including everyone who isn't lovable, but Jesus does and expects us to.
Paul said in Galatians 1;8, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" A gospel that doesn't both require and promise personal change into Christ's pattern is a different gospel. A God who only requires one to say that He is, and not seek His will, is an idol created for personal comfort.
Then this oversimplified salvation allows for a double standard exemplified by a false Jesus. They didn't mention that His sinless life included– even was preceded by– sinless thoughts! "God expects you to stop doing this and this and this, but He doesn't expect anything more from me– I don't have that problem and I already got it together." How easy! But also, "I can stop _______ because it's WRONG in GOD's eyes and therefore in mine… and if you don't stop, GOD and I have no obligation to you." Love is not entirely necessary in this false God's eyes. And i don't want to hear about tough love, because that's definitely not how i feel about an unbeliever. "Freely you have received, freely give." Should that exclude mercy?
The first line of questioning is inadequate. It doesn't prevent the devil from offering (or us from inserting) a thousand provisions for the flesh. It doesn't teach one about love and forgiveness and mercy and equality. The second line of questions puts the first under "given/assumed" and then demands everything, like the First Commandment. The first might show the difference between a believer and an unbeliever, but the second reveals the difference between a hearer and a doer of the Word. The first allows for my old self to go on uninhibited, a holier-than-thou… and the second pronounces, enables, and orders the opposite.