Categories
Environment

Bush attack on conservation

E.G. for Example has an excellent posting on the US Administration’s current efforts to strip away all progress made in the name of conservation for the last 50 years. Especially in light of so many revelations this year about Bush’s energy policies, the secret meetings, Cheney’s Halliburton roots taking such dominance in all of his efforts.

Living in California, you can imagine how happy I am with Cheney’s views of conservation. I remember, fondly, his ill-regarded remark this year about conservation efforts not being enough to help in California. The irony of his statement is that California ended up managing just fine this year after all. Using that same conservation.

Considering how badly this state was burned by Enron, and Cheney’s association with said company, I think his remarks will continue to come back and bite him in the butt in the future — particularly at voting time. At least, this is my fondest wish.

However, as much as I don’t care for Cheney, that’s not the biggie for me: the issue of opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling was, in my opinion, one of the worst moves I’ve ever seen made by a president of the United States.

The problems of increased population and increased demand of natural resources is not something that we can solve with these disasterous short-term solutions. We have to develop plans that will enable this world to survive 100 years into the future, much less 500 or 1000 years. However, the best of the plans are ones that require religious tolerance, selflessness, and intelligence — not traits I’ve seen dominate the Republican party that much recently (though I do see sparks ocassionally).

For instance, to be blunt, we need less people using less natural resources. Birth control will someday no longer be an option if we’re to survive; however, it would be nice to see birth control practiced voluntarily now, rather than involuntarily in the future.

We need to change our attitudes about population control that are still — at least in this country it seems — based on the old biblical admonishments of “…go forth and be fruitful”. The folks who coined these words were small tribes living in the midst of vast lands — they didn’t foresee the devastating impact of these words on a future population that’s not gained the intelligence to know when “fruitful” is as much metaphor as actual practice.

Conservation is still a huge key to our energy problems. Is it so difficult to buy a car with good gas mileage, to turn off a light, to turn down the heater and turn up the air conditioner, or to recycle a can or a newspaper? Conservation is an effective approach to solving energy problems, if applied consistently across the nation. And therein lies the difficulty, doesn’t it? Particularly since conservation doesn’t necessarily benefit Big Business in this country and in other countries. Have to watch that bottom line, you know.

Alternate fuel sources are another biggie. In college I took a class on environmental science. At that time I read that scientists predicted we would run out of petroleum deposits by the year 2025 at current rates of consumption. And that was 20 years ago. Petroleum and the petroleum distillates are used for items so much more precious than the production of gasoline, including medicines. If we literally burn our supplies now, what will we use in the future?

We have the capability now to use alternative fuels, but again, this requires an almost universal drive to support these efforts on the part of the US and other countries. We need acknowledgement that these efforts aren’t a luxury — they’re a necessity. Unfortunately, these efforts require retooling of plants and facilities, and this cuts into quarterly profits for companies such as Ford, and energy companies such as…well… Enron.

However, rather than focus on these long term solutions, it’s easier to drill.

In an NY Times article today, Bush has said that he might scale back the drilling effort in the Refuge. I’ll not be happy for anything less than complete withdrawal from the idea. Is it so wrong to ask that there be one area of this planet — just one — that is left totally alone? Wouldn’t it be nice to know that there’s one area of this planet not being exploited, paved over, drilled, drained?

On a side note, I want to mention that Cheney and I have something in common — we both worked for Halliburton at one point. Of course, I worked for a Halliburton subsidiary: Sierra Geophysics, a small company in Kirkland, Washington that created 3D oil software. And we know that Cheney was Halliburton CEO.

I remember fondly how Sierra Geophysics was stripped of all of its essential software and the staff that didn’t want to relocate to Oklahoma was canned. I am especially fond of this memory since the recommendation to close our shop down came through what was then, Anderson Consulting.

As Halliburton stripped our little company back then, Halliburton alumnus Cheney seeks to strip the Refuge today.

I wonder if they’re using Anderson to manage the effort?

Categories
Critters

Bunnies

I have a thing for bunnies. When I was a kid I lived on a farm and the place next door raised rabbits and draft horses. Since the people who owned this place really liked kids and let me play with the rabbits (and ride the horses), I’ve always had a fondness for bunnies. So when I see a new weblog that features, among other things, bunnies and very nice pictures of same , I’ll pass along the introduction of the new weblogger. I’m especially happy to do so since it’s about time we started seeing some female representation from the land of Oz.

Welcome, Linda to the world of weblogging. Note: This is your last chance to escape unscathed. Once you’re bitten by the bug, you’re in for life.

Question: Do you really feed those cute little guys vegemite? And who took the cute bunny photo?

Categories
Critters Photography

San Diego zoo

Hi! This is your favorite professional writer who hacks a weblog even though we’re not supposed to. I’m bringing you today’s copy of “Where the Blog Turns”.

When last seen our intrepid weblogger was braving the wilds of San Diego zoo. We’ll go live to Burningbird, at the zoo:

Hello? Hello, can you hear me?

The San Diego zoo is everything I’ve ever heard. Wonderful fun. And San Diego is a beautiful city, and the people are very nice. But who designed the freeway system here? Alfred E. Neuman on drugs?

Today’s funniest moment — guy walking around in a plain white t-shirt with masking tape across the back and “Ralph Lauren” printed on the tape.

Second funniest moment — trying to explain to the two older women that, no, there was only one hippo in the water and that the nose above water belonged to the same hippo that’s underwater seemingly right next to the glass.

“Yes, I know that this hippo looks close to the glass and the nose looks further away, but water can bend light and further away objects can appear close.”

“No ma’am, there really is only one hippo in the water.”

“Yes, it is neat how the zoo was able to accomplish this.”

Also, I brought you all a souvenir! A photo of flamingos. What else would someone like me bring back?

And a panda!

Warning: Cat Photo Ahead Three younger tigers were having a great time with a semi-deflated basketball. On in particular was having the best of time with his toy. Big or small, exotic or domestic — cats is cats is cats is cats.

My favorite of all the zoo animals was the Buharan Red Deer, also known as the Bactrian Wapitir. These deer were originally located in Afghanistan and surrounding area, but were hunted to extinction in the former Soviet countries at the end of communist rule. With the religious civil war in Afghanistan every last known member of this species in the wild was killed. Aside from the approximately 100 deer in captivity, this species is extinct.

I was the only person looking at the deer while everyone else was off with the tigers and the gorillas and the pandas. This quiet herd watched me as I watched them. Not sure why, but I started talking to one of the females near the fence. Instead of ignoring me or shying away, she came down to the fence and stuck her nose through it near to where I was standing. Not sure if I sounded like her normal zoo keeper or if she’s just naturally curious. Beautiful, gentle creatures.

I’ve long had a theory that we’ve been visited by members of advanced species from other planets. However, when they get here and see how easily we exterminate species and each other because of such trivial things as political or religious differences, they fly away again, in a state of total disgust.

Anyway, I liked the deer. I hope her species makes it. With that small a gene pool though, chances aren’t good.

Categories
Environment

Stellar Fingerprints

When you look at the night sky from your backyard, do you sometimes think that there is no order to all of those stars out there? If the star isn’t part of a well known constellation, is it nothing more than a point of light in a sea of other points of light? Nothing that distinguishes it from any other star?

Well, this just isn’t so. In fact, stars have characteristics such as temperature, luminosity (brightness), mass, galactic location, distance to the earth, and even age — all combined forming a stellar fingerprint that uniquely identifies a specific star.

You probably already know this, but did you ever stop to wonder how we came to know these unique characteristics of a star? After all, we can’t run up and stick a thermometer in a star, or run a tape measure from the star to Earth. So, how do we find get information about stars?

Finding the distance to a star

Well, this one had me the most curious, so this is the one I’ll take first. How do we measure the distance to a specific star? If the stars are nearby, we use stellar parallax

When you move towards objects that are near you, they seem to move in relation to the objects that are located much futher than you. You might notice this when you look at signs by the side of the road in comparison to the background detail when you’re traveling in a car. You can also notice this effect when you hold a pencil in front of you and view it through one opened eye and then another (see diagram).

This same effect seems to happen to stars that are close to the Earth. If you measure the angle to a star from a fixed point on the Earth, and then measure it again from the same point when the Earth is at the opposite position in its orbit around the sun (in 6 months time), you’ll find that the two measurements form a triangle where they intersect (see U of Oregon Diagram). If you half the triangle and then take the angle of one half, you’ll get a value in arcseconds (an arcsecond is 1/360 of a degree). You can then find the distance to the star using stellar parallex:


d = 1/p

The distance to the star (in parsecs, roughly equal to 3.26 light years) is equal to the inverse of the parallex angle of the star.

A light year is the distance light travels within a year — roughly 300,000 km/s

Using this approach we’ve been able to find the distances to several stars such as Proxima Centauri at 0.772 parallax (4.22 light years); Sirius B at 0.379 parallax (8.61 light years); and Epsilon Indi at 0.276 parallax (11.82 light years).

Of course, this approach works only for stars that are relatively close to the solar system, but once you have this information, you can use the distance in other calculations — such as to find the luminosity of a star.

Finding Luminosity

A star’s brightness is a measure of its luminosity.

Luminosity is the amount of light energy emitted by the star within a second, measured in watts (joules per second).

You might think that luminosity is directly related to the distance of the object from the Earth. Well, it is, but there are other factors involved such as the mass of the star and its temperature. If star A is further from the Earth than star B, but star A is much, much brighter, it can appear more bright to us than the closer star.

Still, the distance to the star can tell us its luminosity, with a simple formula:


L = 4pid2b
In this, the Luminosity is equal to the distance squared, multiplied by the brightness, and then multiplied by 4 times pi (pi approx equal to 3.1415926...). The brightness is the apparent brightness as its measured here on Earth (or wherever the viewpoint is), through techniques such as photometry. The brightness of a star is usually described by comparing it to Sirius A, the brightest star we see from Earth (and with a brightness of 1.0).

A simplified approach to finding luminosity is to plug the Sun's brightness, distance, and luminosity into the formula and then take the ratio of the two equations. By doing this, the value of 4pi falls out of the formula:

L/Lsun = (d/dsun)2 b / bsun

Luminosity can now be found by direct comparison between the star and the Sun.

For instance, if a star has a brightness of 5.2 x 10-12 compared to the sun, and it’s distance from earth is 5.2 x 106 that of the Sun to the Earth, you would use the following to find the luminosity:


Lstar/Lsun = (5.2 x 106)2 5.2 x 10-12 = 140

The star (Regulus) has 140 times the luminosity of the Sun, but appears dimmer because of its distance. You could use this same approach with any two stars — find the ratio of the stars and then solve for the unknown value:


L1/L2 = (d1/d2)2 b1/b2

With this, if you find out that star 1 is 3 times the distance of star 2 and appears twice as bright, you can figure the luminosity without having to use a calculator: star 1 has 18 times the luminosity as star 2.

Another characteristic you can find out about a star from the light it emits is its temperature, found next.

Finding a star’s temperature

Quiz time: which is hotter, a blue star or a red star?

The answer might surprise you — the blue star is hotter. The blue color is because most of the star’s radiation is in shorter wavelengths, hence in the blue to ultraviolet range. A cooler star has a longer wavelength, in the red to infrared range.

Wien’s Law states that as a star’s temperature increases, it’s color shifts to the blue.

You can find the temperature of a star by finding the wavelength of its maximum intensity, and using this value in the Wien’s Law equation:


wavelengthmax = .0029 / T

In the equation just shown, the maximum wavelength emission is equal to a constant value (.0029) divided by the temperature. The maximum wavelength emission can be found using instruments on Earth, so this value is used to find the star’s temperature:


T = .0029 / wavelength max

If a star has a maximum wavelength of 500 nm (5 x 10-7 m), its temperature would then be about 5800 degrees kelvin:


T = 0.0029 / 5 x 10-7

This is the temperature of our own Sun. Its color is due to the fact that the maximum wavelength emission is at 500nm, putting it within the yellow color range in the visible light spectrum.

You can find the maximum wavelength emission of any star using photometry, regardless of its distance from the Earth.

Of course, once you have a star’s temperature, and its luminosity, you can then find its radius.

Finding a star’s radius

Okay, let’s recap what we’ve been able to find out about distant stars.

We’ve been able to find their distance (if close enough to use stellar parallax), as well as their luminosity (regardless of distance). We can also find a star’s maximum wavelength emission, and we’ve used this to find the star’s color as well as temperature. One thing we haven’t found, yet, is a star’s size. We have found, though, the values necessary to find the radius of the star: its luminosity and it’s temperature.

A star’s luminosity is equal to its radius, squared, multiplied by its temperature to an exponent of 4:


L = 4piR2(const)T4

The (const) value in the equation is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, a value of 5.67 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4. (Find other constants.)

You don’t have to remember this rather computationally instensive formula if you look at it as a measure of the ratio between the star and the Sun:


L/Lsun = (R / Rsun)2 (T / Tsun)4

Re-arranging this to search for the radius, you have:


R/Rsun = (Tsun / T)2 SQRT(L / Lsun)

For instance, the star Rigel has a temperature 3 times that of the Sun, and a luminosity 64,000 times that of the Sun (one very bright star). It’s radius in comparison to the Sun’s is:


RRigel/Rsun = (1/3)2SQRT(64,000) = 27.5

Rigel has a radius about 28 times that of our Sun. As the Sun’s radius is 6.96 x 105 km, Rigel’s radius would be about 1.9 x 107 km.

An so on…

There are other things we can find out about stars, but this should give you an idea of what we know, and what we can find out about a specific star. And we didn’t even have to leave our backyards to find it.

Categories
Critters Writing

A Tale of 2 Monsters Part 4: Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

There are many creatures that live in our myths and our minds, but the most famous is probably Scotland’s Nessie, or the Loch Ness Monster. But first, let me digress and talk about another lake monster, one a little closer to home: Lake Champlain’s Champ.

We used to live on a farm on the shore of Lake Champlain in Vermont. You might know Lake Champlain as home of, among other things, Champ, the Lake Champlain Monster.

Between our home and our next door neighbor’s home was a large and dense stand of old trees and brush.

One night, and I’ll never forget it, I and my husband listened to the sound of crashing from the woods as huge limbs were torn from trees at least 30 feet in height. No other sound penetrated the night, not a breath of wind, not a yip from one of the local foxes, no cars, no trucks, nothing — just the sound of smashed brush and crashing trees.

The sound continued long into the night and the next morning, the stand of trees was decimated.

 

Yes, I did live on the Lake Champlain islands in 1997-1998, and the incident I mentioned did occur — during the great ice storm of January, 1998, when the weight of the ice decimated many of the trees on the island.

Now, fess up — I bet you thought I was going to describe an incident involving Champ, the Lake Champlain monster, didn’t you? However, it is just acts of nature such as this that can sometimes generate tales of monsters, especially when one is searching for these same monsters.

However, sometimes, there just isn’t an explanation for what someone sees, or hears, or believes. It is then that some monsters enter the ranks of the legendary, monsters such as Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster.

Nessie: Origins of a Legend

 

During the Twentieth century, several photos of Nessie have been published, and in one very well known case, been proven to be a forgery. Numerous eye witness accounts of Nessie have been chronicled, and drawings made of eye witness accounts, such as those shown in this page, but there has never actual physical verification that Nessie exists.

Nessie’s beginnings, though, go back to an earlier time. According to folk lore, and a PBS Nova special on the monster2, the Scottish Highlands has had legends of a strange water-based creature since the Romans first entered the territory over 1500 years ago.

The Romans met up with the Picts in Scotland. The Picts were a pretty feisty group of people that liked to among other things, carve realistic images of animals, including the water-based creature mentioned in the last paragraph. Though it isn’t that unusual for primitive tribes to create stylized images of animals, the Picts concentrated only on images of real world animals. Well, if this was true, what was the water-based beast they represented? It is from simple roots that legends can spring.

The first “modern recording” of the Loch Ness Monster was made by a Saint Columbia, who wrote about saving a swimming man from a large creature by invoking the name of God, an incident occurring in the 500’s.

Of course, it wasn’t that unusual for the early Christians to weave themselves and their beliefs into folk legends and practices of areas they hoped to convert.

Nessie Sightings

Though Nessie achieved most of its fame based on sightings in the 1900’s, there are also eye witness accounts of seeing a the creature of Loch Ness in the 17th through the 19th century3, where it was also known as a water-kelpie or water horse, though without the frequency of this century’s sightings.

However, it was in 1933 that a sighting occurred that put Loch Ness on the map, and Nessie in the news. In 1933, a Mr. Spicer and his wife were driving by Loch Ness when they saw a creature crossing the road, a creature unlike any they had ever seen before. They described the beast as having a long neck followed a large, ponderous body, and they watched it until it left the road and entered the water.

The Spicer sighting was only the first of a plethora of sightings of Nessie, and it seemed the world just couldn’t get its fill of hearing stories about this mythical water beast. According to the Legend of Nessie site6, over 32 sightings occurred in the 1930’s alone.

What accounts for such a sudden surge in Nessie sightings? Well, one main reason is that roads were built around the Loch, increasing exposure of the lake to many more people. Another probable cause is that the idea of Nessie was planted in people’s minds. Where before a person may have seen a stick floating in the water, they may now see a tail. Where before a wave is only a natural movement of water, it now becomes the wake of a creature hidden from sight.

Perhaps it is also a matter a person seeing something that they can’t explain and where before they dismissed the sight as a stick or the natural movement of water, now they consider another source for what they are seeing: Nessie5.

The larger number of sightings of Nessie continued until the advent of World War II turned people’s minds to other monsters, in other places.

Century’s Greatest Hoax?

Many if not most of the Loch Ness sightings are from folks reporting what they genuinely see, and genuinely believe they are seeing. However, you can’t have the interest in something such as Nessie without attracting hoaxes, and the Loch Ness Monster had its share.

One of the first hoaxes was the finding of large and unusual footprints, discovered by a big game hunter of the time, Marmaduke Wetherell. He found large footprints, freshly made, in December of 1933, made casts of the prints and sent them off to the Natural Museum in London.

Well, there was a whole lot of excitement about the first physical “evidence” of the Loch Ness Monster. However, the excitement didn’t last long, because the January following the finding of the prints, scientists announced that not only were the prints not that of an unknown beast, they were the prints of a hippopotamus foot, and a stuffed hippo foot, at that.

The footprint hoax definitely cooled interest in the Loch, at least from the basis of serious study, but it wasn’t the most famous hoax that came from Loch Ness. This dubious honor belongs to a photo supposedly taken by a Dr. Robert Kenneth Wilson in 1934.

This photo shows what looks like a sea serpent with a small head on a long neck, and resembling known images of a pre-historic dinosaur known as the plesiosaur.

The photo was examined and was determined to be genuine, not the result of camera trickery, and investigation of the creature in comparison to the wave sizes put the creature’s neck to be a couple of feet in length. All well, and good, except that the “creature” in the photo was nothing more than a fake serpent neck attached to the back of a toy submarine.

How was the information about the faking of the photo discovered? One of the people that was involved with the hoax made a death bed confession in 1994 to that effect. And the person who was responsible for the hoax? None other than our friend, Marmaduke Wetherell.

After the debacle of the fake serpent footprint, Wetherell contacted his stepson, Christian Spurling, about creating the fake monster and setting up the hoax. With the help of Spurling, Wetherell’s son Ian, and two friends, Colonel Wilson and Maurice Chambers, who was with Dr. Wilson at the famous sighting, the hoax was on.

Why did Wetherell do this? A possible reason could be revenge after the embarrassment he received because of the fake footprint. However, once the photo was published by the Daily Mail, and once the world reacted so strongly to the photo, all involved probably felt it wouldn’t be too good an idea to come forward with a confession about what they had done, even if this was the intention9.

Loch Ness researcher Alister Boyd helped to uncover the hoax when he had discovered a story published years before by Ian Wetherell confessing to the hoax, a story that had been originally ignored. Boyd and fellow researcher David Martin contacted the last living representative of the hoax, Spurling, who confessed that he had helped fake the photo10.

In spite of the two uncovered hoaxes, folks still believe in Nessie and every year, people go to considerable lengths to try and find physical evidence of the Loch Ness Monster.

Current Research Efforts and Findings

In the 1970’s, Dr. Robert Rines from the Academy of Applied Science in Boston, Massachusetts, began to use sonar to try and obtain images of the Loch Ness Monster. He and his crew did obtain images of what they say are the flipper and head and upper body of a creature that they believe can only be the Loch Ness Monster11.

In addition to the work performed by Dr. Rines, other folks have dedicated their lives to finding physical proof of Nessie, folks such as Tim Dinsdale, who literally spent his life looking for proof of Nessie.

Another research project is being conducted by Dan Scott Taylor and is known as the Nessa Project12. The Nessa Project is based on the search for Nessie using a small, 4 person, submarine. Taylor used a smaller submarine, the Viperfish, to search for Nessie in the 1960’s, though without success and with many mechanical problems (though he believes that he was turned around on the bottom once by Nessie passing). Taylor hopes to try again as soon as he has funding for his new, home made submarine, the “Nessa”.

Not all those who research the Loch Ness Monster are seeking actual proof of the existence of the creature. For instance, as mentioned earlier, Alister Boyd helped to de-bunk the Nessie photo hoax, even though he says he has witnessed an actual appearance of Nessie and seeks proof of the monster’s existence. Another more cautious researcher is Richard Carter, who also investigates the existence of Nessie, but also investigates the “evidence” of sightings, to see which is genuine, which hopeful thinking and bad camera shots13.

Of the research against the existence of Nessie, two areas that form the focus of this research is that the lake could not support enough of the Loch Ness creatures to form a viable population, without much more evidence of their existence; and that there is not enough food within the lake to support any such population of larger creatures. Another scientific fact that makes the Loch a difficult home for a creature that could possibly be the last remnant of the dinosaur age, the plesiosaur, is that Loch Ness was a glacier until a scant 10,000 years ago — long after the dinosaurs were extinct14.

However, the searches still continue, the hunt is still on.

A Tale of Two Monsters: Summary

The Tale of Two Monsters takes a look at two legendary beasts, one proven to physically exist, the other still considered myth. We’ve covered how legends can arise, and how these same legends have influenced our currently popular form of story telling: the movies.

The series also looked at cryptozoology or the study of animals without physical verification and that are discovered first through legends, tales, and folklore. In the last two sections of the series, we got a chance to meet the two stars of the series: the giant squid and Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster.

You may be asking whether I personally believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. I would hope that I’m an open minded person, but the existence of the giant squid leads me to doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, and it’s this relationship that tied these two creatures together for me and led to the articles you are reading.

As you saw in Part 3 of this article, the giant squid is a large creature, most likely up to a maximum of 60 feet in length, inhabiting the deepest depths of the oceans. To approach the surface is basically a death sentence for these creatures, yet we have physical evidence of the giant squid, including several well preserved examples in museums such as the Smithsonian.

Consider this: the Loch Ness Monster is not as large as the giant squid, but is much bulkier and would be much heavier. It’s supposedly located in a body of water that is much, much, much smaller than the ocean. The Loch Ness monster is also an air breather, meaning that it must surface to breath, unlike the giant squid — to reiterate, surfacing for the giant squid is death. Yet, we have physical evidence of the giant squid, and nothing more than faint, fuzzy images and highly scattered (yes, scattered) eye witness accounts of Nessie. I can’t help but believe that we would have physical evidence, hard evidence, of Nessie by now if it existed, if we can have enumerable specimans of the giant squid.

Regardless of my personal viewpoint, I respect the beliefs of others and I respect the beliefs of those who feel that Nessie does exist. Something such as the Skeptic’s Dictionary can scorn this belief15, but those who tear down beliefs with such joy are not scientists — they are most likely nothing more than frustrated believers themselves who had their own beliefs shattered and now obtain considerable satisfaction is destroying the beliefs of others.

I started Part 4 of this article with a description of an incident that happened when I lived on the shores of Lake Champlain. I talked about how “normal” events can achieve significance when they occur out of context, or when our expectations are set — I believe in something therefore when something unexplained happens, the unexplained takes shape rather than staying as something unexplained, and therefore easily dismissed.

Scientifically, I may doubt the existence of Champ16, the Lake Champlain equivalent of Nessie, yet there is a part of me that wonders…

This is the part of me that peers into the darkness when I cross the lake on the ferry. This is the part of me that turns towards the lake when I hear an odd sound in the pattern of the waves. This is the part of me that looks to the lake during the full moon, with just a slight bit of expectation and curiosity. Not a lot, just a slight bit. This is the part of me that gives me soul.