CORRECTION: #327, the Meeker Slough runs eastward into the Bay, not westward.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Conner Recovery Site Field Trip - October 6, 2010 PART THREE
{Reminder: Click on images to enlarge}
CORRECTION: #327, the Meeker Slough runs eastward into the Bay, not westward.
CORRECTION: #327, the Meeker Slough runs eastward into the Bay, not westward.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Conner Recovery Site Field Trip - October 6, 2010 PART TWO
{Reminder: click on images to enlarge}
(To be continued)
(To be continued)
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Conner Recovery Site Field Trip - October 6, 2010 PART ONE
{REMINDER: click on the images to enlarge}
The purpose of this field trip was to:
1. Observe whether People's 100 accurately represents the Conner Recovery site at high tide.
2. Observe what happens to debris as the tide recedes.
NOAA predicted the high tide on October 6 would reach 6.33 ft, just short of the 6.39 ft verified water level for People’s 100 – that’s less than ¾ of an inch difference. NOAA’s preliminary water levels give the actual water level as 6.35, less than ½ inch lower than 6.39. Verified water levels won’t be available until approximately December 6, 2010.
Wind data was also taken from the NOAA. The UC Berkeley station (BAAQMD) will not have wind data for this date till approximately January 6, 2011.
This report repeatedly calls attention to these critical water levels:
5.45 ft. = MHW, average of all high tides
5.77 ft. = High tide on morning of April 12, 2003 (the storm)
5.88 ft. = High tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05 ft. = MHHW, average of all higher high tides
6.39 ft. = People’s 100
This report includes more than 150 pictures taken on October 6 to help the reader better understand what the Conner Recovery Site looks like at critical water levels and what happens to the debris as the tide recedes.
[to be continued]
The purpose of this field trip was to:
1. Observe whether People's 100 accurately represents the Conner Recovery site at high tide.
2. Observe what happens to debris as the tide recedes.
NOAA predicted the high tide on October 6 would reach 6.33 ft, just short of the 6.39 ft verified water level for People’s 100 – that’s less than ¾ of an inch difference. NOAA’s preliminary water levels give the actual water level as 6.35, less than ½ inch lower than 6.39. Verified water levels won’t be available until approximately December 6, 2010.
Wind data was also taken from the NOAA. The UC Berkeley station (BAAQMD) will not have wind data for this date till approximately January 6, 2011.
This report repeatedly calls attention to these critical water levels:
5.45 ft. = MHW, average of all high tides
5.77 ft. = High tide on morning of April 12, 2003 (the storm)
5.88 ft. = High tide on morning of April 13, 2003
6.05 ft. = MHHW, average of all higher high tides
6.39 ft. = People’s 100
This report includes more than 150 pictures taken on October 6 to help the reader better understand what the Conner Recovery Site looks like at critical water levels and what happens to the debris as the tide recedes.
[to be continued]
Conner Recovery Site Field Trip - October 6, 2010
I made another field trip to the Conner Recovery Site (Richmond mudflat) this last October 6. I have 150 or so pictures that I've annotated and compiled into a single PDF. This PDF is very large, 90 megs, so you will want to right click on the link (it's on the homepage) and save it to your computer. Once you do that, it should open easily in your browser. Google Chrome can't seem to handle it, but IE works okay.
I'm also going to put the pictures in blog articles, for those who don't want to bother with such a large PDF. I'll only do a couple of pictures at a time, and you can click on each picture to enlarge it.
I keep returning to the Conner Recovery Site hoping to capture in pictures that anomaly that explains how Conner could have washed ashore at such a low water level -- 5.88 verified water level doesn't even match the 6.05 MHHW, which is the average of all higher high tides. The breakwater system at the mudflat (west breakwater, south breakwater, and north breakwater) is designed to protect this wildlife refuge from average higher high tides, and these pictures will show that it does a very good job.
Or the anomaly that explains why Conner was north of the debris line -- not "in" the debris line, not "with" the debris line, not "near" the debris line -- but north of it a sufficient distance to compel Distaso to explain it. The explanation he gave -- that heavier items are deposited first as the tide recedes -- was not provided by any expert and has no basis in science. These pictures prove, again, that heavier objects and lighter objects remain in the same debris line.
However, this field trip did capture in pictures the common-sense explanation of why Conner was north of the debris line -- you will see that the water coverage exceeds the debris line. NOAA explains the debris line as the furthermost reach of the waves, and that is true on beaches, but it's not true on sites like the mudflat where Conner was found. The tall grass and gradual slope of the terrain impede the northward movement of the debris line, but they don't prevent the grass north of the debris line from becoming saturated with water -- more than enough to fool someone into thinking that putting a baby there would be proof that the baby washed ashore.
So the PDF is already available at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/field/100610/100610.pdf, and I will start putting groups of pictures into blog articles later today.
If anyone questions the integrity of these pictures, I strongly recommend that you make your own field trip to the Conner Recovery Site and take your own pictures. I'd be happy to help you plan the best dates for the field trip, and will publish your pictures for you. I'm not afraid of someone showing me that Conner could have washed ashore -- if that could be proven, it certainly would simplify things. I just haven't been able to prove it's even possible, much less probable.
I'm also going to put the pictures in blog articles, for those who don't want to bother with such a large PDF. I'll only do a couple of pictures at a time, and you can click on each picture to enlarge it.
I keep returning to the Conner Recovery Site hoping to capture in pictures that anomaly that explains how Conner could have washed ashore at such a low water level -- 5.88 verified water level doesn't even match the 6.05 MHHW, which is the average of all higher high tides. The breakwater system at the mudflat (west breakwater, south breakwater, and north breakwater) is designed to protect this wildlife refuge from average higher high tides, and these pictures will show that it does a very good job.
Or the anomaly that explains why Conner was north of the debris line -- not "in" the debris line, not "with" the debris line, not "near" the debris line -- but north of it a sufficient distance to compel Distaso to explain it. The explanation he gave -- that heavier items are deposited first as the tide recedes -- was not provided by any expert and has no basis in science. These pictures prove, again, that heavier objects and lighter objects remain in the same debris line.
However, this field trip did capture in pictures the common-sense explanation of why Conner was north of the debris line -- you will see that the water coverage exceeds the debris line. NOAA explains the debris line as the furthermost reach of the waves, and that is true on beaches, but it's not true on sites like the mudflat where Conner was found. The tall grass and gradual slope of the terrain impede the northward movement of the debris line, but they don't prevent the grass north of the debris line from becoming saturated with water -- more than enough to fool someone into thinking that putting a baby there would be proof that the baby washed ashore.
So the PDF is already available at http://pwc-sii.com/Research/field/100610/100610.pdf, and I will start putting groups of pictures into blog articles later today.
If anyone questions the integrity of these pictures, I strongly recommend that you make your own field trip to the Conner Recovery Site and take your own pictures. I'd be happy to help you plan the best dates for the field trip, and will publish your pictures for you. I'm not afraid of someone showing me that Conner could have washed ashore -- if that could be proven, it certainly would simplify things. I just haven't been able to prove it's even possible, much less probable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)