Hawaii Travel

Archive for October, 2009

Our state and our planet can expect some astronomical excitement in coming years, with close asteroid encounters in the next three decades, and a (vaguely) possible impact within 50 years.

The asteroid is called Apophis. It swings near the Earth in 2029, 2036 and again in 2068.

(Image: The little circle marks Apophis in this University of Hawai’i Institute for Astronomy photo.)

The best and latest calculations have it missing the surface of the planet by just 20,000 miles in 2036.

“Our new orbit solution shows that Apophis will miss Earth’s surface in 2036 by a scant 20,270 miles, give or take 125 miles. That’s slightly closer to Earth than most of our communications and weather satellites,” said David Tholen, of the University of Hawai’i Institute for Astronomy.

The calculation still isn’t perfect, and scientists figure the odds at four in a million that it could hit the Earth.

The estimates are calculated from observations at Mauna Kea observatories by Tholen, former Hawaii astronomer Fabrizio Bernardi of the University of Pisa, Italy, and University of Hawai’i graduate students Marco Micheli and Garrett Elliott. From those observations, Steve Chesley, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California, calculated the positions of Apophis.

But after that really near miss, the new calculations suggest Apophis has a three in a million chance that it could crash into the Earth in 2068. Researchers will be making more detailed calculations about that possibility in 2010 when Apophis—which disappears behind the Sun during part of its orbit—swings back into view.

Tholen, Bernardi and University of Arizona astronomer Roy Tucker discovered Apophis only in 2004.

The initial orbit calculations suggested it had a small chance of impact with the Earth as early as a Friday the 13th in April 2029, but further calculations showed that would not happen.

Apophis is a couple of hundred yards across. If it did hit, that would be a big issue. But the odds are against it.

“The refined orbital determination further reinforces that Apophis is an asteroid we can look to as an opportunity for exciting science and not something that should be feared,” said Don Yeomans, manager of the Near-Earth Object Program Office at JPL. “The public can follow along as we continue to study Apophis and other near-Earth objects by visiting us on our AsteroidWatch Web site and by following us on the @AsteroidWatch Twitter feed.”

The information in this post was drawn from the following two press releases.

Here’s the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s release on the event. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-151

And here’s the university of Hawai’i Institute for Astronomy release. http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/press-releases/Apophis-TholenOct09/

Other resources:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch

http://www.nasa.gov

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Go to Source

They used to call them service stations, even when all they offered was fuel, water and air.

Today, at an increasing number of stations, even that’s a stretch. Air is among the first to go.

(Image: Stacked tires. Credit: EIA, U.S. Department of Energy.)

These days, many gas stations will have a convenience store, selling candy bars, beer and pretzels, but they won’t have even the basics when it comes to keeping your car on the road.

This is a disturbing trend. If a gas station doesn’t have compressed air, who will? It’s understood that a pharmacy sells bandages, and not just Viagra.

I stopped at one Kauai station to get gas and to fill up my tires. The compressor was out of order. No air. And it had been out of order for some time.

At another station, there was no compressor at all. You couldn’t put air in your tires there, even if you were willing to pay for it. They referred me to a tire repair shop.

At a third, you had to feed coins into the compressor. (In some states, that coin box has become a target for vandals and thieves.)

Checking the air in your tires is something a driver ought to do every few times the car is filled up, at least a visual check and frequently a check with a tire gauge.

Low air pressure increases rolling resistance and makes you use more fuel. Differences in air pressure between tires can affect the car’s performance, a safety issue. Tires are expensive, and low air can make a tire wear out quicker, and can cause tire damage. (Overinflated tires can also cause problems, reducing traction.)

But gas stations increasingly are saving money by refusing to install air compressors, or are charging for air. Some folks strongly feel that air should be free, but we are less concerned about the price than that air should at least be available.

In some states, free air is required by law. In others, a station can charge, but must provide free air service to fuel customers. (In some cases, attendants will give these folks tokens for pay compressors; in others, attendants remotely can allow free access to the compressed air.)

In California, for instance, “law requires every service station in this state to provide, during operating hours, water, compressed air, and a gauge for measuring air pressure, to the public for use in servicing any passenger or commercial vehicle, as defined.”

In Connecticut, the air must not only be free, but you legally must post a sign saying it’s both available and free.

Our prediction is that if air-free (as opposed to free-air) stations continue to proliferate in Hawai’i, consumer demand will lead to legislation making it mandatory.

In the meantime, one of our energy-interested correspondents suggests stations with free air take advantage of the potential competitive boost by posting signs that they have air available.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Go to Source

god DAMN it’s been slowing down guys. like, to a screeching halt. i would sit here and piss and moan about it but it feels sofa king good. in fact, i’m feeling pretty amazing….

first off.
i’m a little caught up right now. this is us after realizing we made one month. god that’s the best time [...]
Go to Source

A conservative institution, the international financier Deutsche Bank, is arguing that oil could hit $175 by 2016—a little more than six years out.

And that will give rise to disruptive energy technologies that will change the world, the bank says.

(Image: The Tesla Roadster, an example of the disruptive electric powered vehicle technology that will crush global oil demand? Credit: Tesla Motors.)

Deutsche bank has some credibility in oil prediction. Early last year, half a year before oil hit $147 a barrel, the bank predicted it would reach $150. Hmm.

We haven’t been able to find the actual $175/gal report, but the Wall Street Journal has. http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/05/peak-oil-the-end-of-the-oil-age-is-near-deutsche-bank-says/?mod=rss_WSJBlog

The fascinating thing about Deutsche Bank’s prediction is that it also suggests that will help prompt a second peak—a peak in demand.

In essence, they’re saying that the high pricing (in part) will crush demand so thoroughly and permanently that prices will drop by 2030 back to today’s $70 range.

We’ve seen a little of this kind of activity in the year since last year’s oil price peak. Demand for petroleum has dropped. Global oil stockpiles are high. Oil-fired electricity demand is down. Is it more the oil price peak, or more the recession, or a combination? Don’t know. But the drop in demand is there.

The Journal cites the Deutsche Bank report as saying it expects the automotive industry to promote the disruptive technology that will help drive down petroleum demand. It’s hybrid and electric cars.

“We expect [electric propulsion] will reverse the dynamics of world oil demand, and spell the end of the oil age,” the Journal quotes the report saying.

By coincidence, as I write this, I’m a few hours out of a test drive in an electric car.

It was the $109,000 Tesla Roadster.

It shatters all the stereotypes of an electric car as a glorified golf cart, as a short-range neighborhood vehicle, as something an order of magnitude less than sexy.

It was red.

It was low.

It was convertible.

It had a distinctly Lotus air about it.

It was all electric.

It was the hottest car I’ve ever driven.

Acceleration that pulls the flesh back off the bones of your face.

Speed, well, so let’s just say it reaches with elan whatever is the posted speed limit.

It nicely held the road in corners.

It has no transmission. Electric motors don’t need to shift.

And it has more than 200 miles of range on a single charge.

I don’t know whether the folks at Deutsche Bank have driven the Tesla Roadster. If they have, I understand their prediction.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Go to Source

Disease is killing off corals faster, in some parts of the world, than sedimentation, chemicals flowing from the land, damaging anchoring procedures and destructive fishing techniques.

And what’s promoting disease? Perhaps it’s overfishing and a high population of butterflyfishes.

(Image: Complex marine communities appear healthier than ones missing key players, research indicates. Credit: National Marine Fisheries Service.)

A new study suggests one thing can help protect reefs from coral disease: a diverse fish population.

This odd-seeming result, argues, the authors say, for protecting coral reefs from overfishing.

To make sense of this research, it is necessary to think of coral reefs as interlocked communities rather than simply collections of living rock. And fish are part of the community.

The paper that reported the study is in the October 6, 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (www.pnas.org) It is entitled, “Functionally diverse reef-fish communities ameliorate coral disease,” by University of Guam Marine Laboratory researchers Laurie J. Raymundo, Andrew R. Halford, and Alexander Kerr, and University of Hawai’i Department of Zoology researcher Aileen P. Maypa.

The researchers studied reefs in the Philippines, including both fished reefs and marine protected areas. They looked at more than 20,000 coral colonies. In general, they found that reefs with diverse fish communities had less disease, and vice versa.

Their paper reports that fish are a major regulating force on reefs. Some fish, of course, eat corals, but other fish eat those fish, still others eat algae that threaten corals and so forth.

What happens if fishing pressure pulls out one piece of this three-dimensional jigsaw?

“If subject to sustained heavy fishing, entire functional groups can be lost, resulting in a cascade of effects,” the authors said.

Fish that are no longer being eaten can increase in population, building up the pressure on the things they eat, for example. The cascade of impacts threaten the stability of the reef and, “ultimately, the resilience of coral reefs is compromised.”

One additional and intriguing bit of information from the research was that areas with high butterflyfish populations tended also to have higher coral disease levels.

Anglers and spearfisherfolks tend not to target butterflyfishes, so they can actually increase in number after heavy fishing—both because they’re not being killed by humans, but also because their predators are removed by human fishers.

Could these fishes be associated with coral disease spread? It looks like they might. The researchers studied data on Australian coral reefs and came up with the same results.

“Chaetodontids (butterflyfishes) again emerged as the single fish family significantly

and positively associated with disease prevalence,” they wrote.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Go to Source

There’s talk about moving one Hawaiian whale on and one Hawaiian whale off the federal Endangered Species List.

Why? Humpbacks have recovered nicely since being protected, while the Hawaiian inshore population of false killer whales is dropping to near 100 individuals.

(Image: humpback whale numbers have recovered, but they still face threats. This whale off Maui last year, was entangled in multiple lengths of polypropylene line. Credit: NOAA)

The humpback whale, for which the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary was designated just a dozen years ago, has recovered dramatically in numbers since whaling for it was technically halted by an international ban back in 1966.

Humpbacks had dropped in number to between 1,000 and 2,000. Now their number is estimated at more than 20,000 in the North Pacific.

The sanctuary, of course, is for more than just whales, and its survival should not be threatened by the downlisting of Hawai’i's most visible whale species. More information on the status review for humpbacks here http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-SPECIES/2009/August/Day-12/e19336.htm.

That site includes information on how to comment on the status of the whales. Deadline for comment is Oct. 13. More on this below.

Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council is calling for the endangered species listing of another Hawai’i whale, the Hawaiian false killer whale. http://www.nrdc.org/media/2009/090930a.asp

Most folks have seen humpbacks, because of their remarkable aerial acrobatics, sometimes leaping their tons upon tons entirely out of the water.

Most have never seen Hawaiian false killer whales, Pseudorca crassidens, which are large dolphins that can reach three-quarters of a ton in weight. These animals tend to be deepwater creatures, but there is a genetically distinct Hawaiian population that remains close to shore.

There are only about 120 of them, and the population has been declining for the last quarter century—the same time during which humpbacks have been rebounding.

“Given the extremely small size of this population, the loss of even a few mature adults could have serious and long-term reproductive consequences. Toxic chemicals, reduced food sources and interactions with fishing vessels are the biggest threats to this unique mammal,” said NRDC wildlife biologist Sylvia Fallon.

In a press release, the organization adds these points:

“The population faces a number of threats including interactions with local fisheries, reduced food sources and exposure to toxic chemicals. False killer whales are likely affected both by long-line and unregulated near-shore and “short” long-line fisheries. A recent study showed that disfigurement from fishing gear in this population was four times higher than for other dolphin and toothed whale species, suggesting high rates of interactions with fisheries. These fisheries may also be contributing to a decline in the size or number of the primary food source for false killer whales, which are large deep water fish including mahi mahi and yellowfin tuna.

“Recent research confirms the presence of PCBs (a toxic substance found in plastics), DDT and flame retardants in tissue samples taken from the Hawaiian false killer whales. Pollution levels found in one-third of the samples are known to cause serious health problems in marine mammals.

“The cumulative effects of these risks combined with the depleted population qualify the Hawaiian false killer whale as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act. If listed, the population would become the first Hawaiian toothed whale species listed under ESA and only the second toothed whale (after the southern resident killer whale in the Pacific Northwest) listed overall. Today’s petition was sent to the Secretary of Commerce through the National Marine Fisheries Service.”

This site has images of major whale species and the threats they face, http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/documents/pdfs_ocean_users/hmmthreatguide.pdf

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

If you choose to comment on the listing status of humpback whales, here’s the contact information from the Federal Register:

DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct these reviews, we mustreceive your information no later than October 13, 2009. However, wewill continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the code 0648-XQ74,addressed to Shannon Bettridge by any of the following methods:   1. Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic comments via theFederal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.   2. Facsimile (fax): 301-713-0376, Attn: Shannon Bettridge.   3. Mail: Shannon Bettridge, National Marine Fisheries Service,Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring,MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Bettridge at the aboveaddress, or at 301-713-2322.

Go to Source

If complexity is the enemy of understanding, then it’s no wonder that folks are confused by climate change.

The climate is so complex that nobody’s going to make sense of it in an hour or a day or even much longer.

Take some of the human-caused things that can affect global temperatures, either pushing them hotter or dialing them cooler. This is from the 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. You can find it here.

Airliner contrails and more cirrus clouds make it warmer.

More sulphates and other reflective aerosols from coal burning make it cooler.

More black soot (can also come from coal burning) makes it warmer.

The tendency of particles from fossil fuel burning to support cloud formation makes it cooler.

Mineral dust blowing up off cleared land makes it warmer.

Reduced ozone in the upper atmosphere makes it cooler.

Increased methane, such as from cows and landfills, makes it warmer.

Making the land surface more reflective, by clearing, makes it cooler.

Increased nitrogen gas from feedlots and biomass burning makes it warmer.

Increased carbon-dioxide, of course, is a big warmer.

And so forth.

Some of these things have a bigger impact on temperature; some smaller. Some last for days in the atmosphere, some centuries.

It’s really complex.

On balance, the report says, the result of human activity from the year 1750 to now promotes more warming than cooling.

There are lots of natural, non-human factors that impact climate, of course. One is the sun, whose output can be calculated.

The report estimates the sun is responsible for about a quarter of the amount of climate warming that humans are responsible for in the last 250 years.

The combined total climate forcing of all calculated human impacts during the period in question was about 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar radiation, which has recovered since there was a lower than average intensity in 1750, is calculated at .3 watts per square meter.

It is painfully easy, in the face of the immense complexity, to grasp at one or two facts and draw conclusions from them, rather than taking in the whole picture.

Easy, and commonly done by folks on both sides of the climate discussion, but wrong.

© Jan TenBruggencate 2009

Go to Source

blah, i’ve never really been in to the planets and stuff. saturn in venus affecting aries moving around jupiter’s tenth house of career in the full moon to the third power? come onnnn. we all have good days and bad days. like i’m supposed to believe that it’s some giant masses of gas and debris bazillions [...]
Go to Source