tidal cycles - waves around the world

I made these pretty charts and learned something about the tides from them. I really like them, they seem like art to me, and i didn't really know what to do with them, so i figured i'd post them here.

This started initially with an observation that the summer highest tides seemed to be always right around lunchtime, while the winter highest tides were around midnight.

Here in Seattle we have a 16 foot daily tidal range -- large enough to be very noticeable. We are on a fjord called The Salish Sea or Puget Sound; it is teaming with life: at low tide it is fascinating to wander the intertidal zone and see the crabs, mollusks, fish, plants and even octopi that live at the edge of the underwater world. A biologist friend and i often gave guided tide tours to travelers at the lowest tides, so i was alert to what time these tides happen.

The extremes happen during the 2 or 3 full or new moons closest to the solstice. That means that once in May, once in June and once in July. And also once in November, once in December and once in January.

The lowest and highest tides happen on the same day! It's pretty amazing to walk a couple hundred meters from 'shore' on the sand and rocks, knowing that in just 6 hours the water will be three times my height deep where i am! The entire fjord fills up really fast. That's a lot of water.

I tend to think of the highest high tides being in the winter and the lowest low tides being in the summer, but that may have more to do with what i see in daylight. And THAT gets me to the question i had...

Tides vary significantly from tide height to tide height and from day to day, month to month. A detailed tide table, made using very complex math, is required to predict a tide for any day.

There are four tides a day, a high high and a lower high, a low low and a higher low, although because the cycle is not exactly timed to 24 hours (i think it's 28 hours) every few days one tide is missed. The tide tables are sine waves, showing the tide rising a falling.

Every year when we would plan our low tide walks, we would consult the tide tables to find out at what time the lowest tides each month would be. And after about 10 years i noticed that those super low tides in May, June & July were always right around mid-day.

So i wondered, is that a rule of the system? Is it just a coincidence of Seattle's location (47 degrees latitude), of era (1990s & 2000s), or is there something that governed that.

Tides are caused by a gravity interplay of the three body system of the sun, the moon and the earth. They effect our bodies and the rocks and mountains, but in such tiny amounts that it is not noticeable. However water is both fluid and heavy and there's a lot of it. The moon's pull, the sun's pull and the force of the earth swinging around the sun sloshes the oceans around, keeping big bumps of water underneath the moon and the sun, and opposite the sun (from the swing).

Tide is also effected by latitude (because the earth is tilted, tides are smaller near the equator) and by the depth and shape of various inlets.

I have several good tide prediction websites that i regularly use, notablyNOAA and the WWW Tide Predictor at the University of South Carolina. I

Initially i got data from both places, but i wanted to be consistent and i really like the US National Oceanic an Atmospheric Administration, so i used only data from there. I picked 28 sites around the world. I tried to get a good spread, but i can't say this is random in any way; i leaned towards places i had visited or knew of and i only picked 28 data points.

I used the tides data for two years, from both 2010 and 2011 superimposed on each other to get  fuller and more consistent data.  That's a couple thousand tides (about 4 per day 730 days) for each site!   I graphed only the most extreme tides, and color coded them according to season.

The graphs helped me to answer my question.  This phenomenon is pretty much world wide, it's not unique to Seattle.  The highest highs in the winter and summer are about 12 hours apart, and the lowest lows the same.  Some places it's not noon and midnight, but the pattern is the same. (Studying the physics of tidal motion further i was able to determine those super low tides in the summer will in fact always be around mid-day, and the super-highs in the winter around mid-day.)

I was finished with the graphs, but i found that the images were so beautiful i wanted to keep them.

Here they are, arranged from south to north, regardless of longitude. I hid the spring and fall and only plotted the summer (pink) and winter (blue) tides. You'll notice a solid line through each graph, that's the mean low tide line, or zero. The scale changes, often enormously, from graph to graph. I am not trying to compare the amplitude of tides from place to place, only the patterns, so i chose a different  scale for each graph so they are all comparable in size.

Davis, Antarctica

Ushuaia, Argentina

Lady Barron Harbour, Tasmania, Australia

Omaio Bay, Motunui Island, New Zealand

Sydney, Australia

Durban, South Africa

Fortaleza, Brazil

Port Royal, Isla Roatan, Honduras

Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico

Hilo Bay, Hilo, Hawaii

Isigaki, Okinawa

Key West, Florida

Bay St. Louis, Mississippi

Charlston, South Carolina

Inner Harbor, Long Beach, California

Coney Island, New York, New York

Tokati, Hokkaido, Japan

Casco Bay, Portland, Maine

Skipanon River, Warrenton, Oregon

St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada

Seattle, Washington

Dover, England

Llandudno, Gwynedd, Wales

West-Terschelling, Netherlands

Zehnerloch, Germany

Wick, Scotland

Leaf Bay, Ungava, Bay, Quebec

Knik Arm, Cook Inlet, Anchorage, Alaska

Perfectionism and the "Good Enough" gauge

The problem with perfectionism is NOT the inability to be satisfied -- although that can be frustrating.

The problem with perfectionism is NOT the unwillingness to start things because you could never do it well enough -- although that's terribly deblitating.

The problem with perfectionism is NOT the cutting yourself off from everyone and everything that is not perfect, since nothing is -- although that is so destructive.

No, the problem with perfectionism is not having the ability to judge good enough.

We all have an inbuilt gauge of what is good enough. Call it the sufficient gland, or the appropriate gauge, the satisfactory meter, or the acceptable index or whatever. Is 75% good enough, 65%? 90%, 10%?

Many people have a fairly well calibrated acceptable index. The rest of us envy them. Some peoples' gauges, are clearly set far too low, and we are all annoyed with those people. And other peoples' are set annoyingly high.

But with perfectionists, the gauge is pegged at the top, full-on all the time. There is no variation, it never reads anything different so it is USELESS, leaving that person with NO GAUGE of 'good enough' AT ALL.

You either stupidly stare at the gauge, and everything will always fall below the topped out meter, so nothing is ever good enough, or, with awareness of the malfunction, you ignore the gauge and have to GUESS what is satisfactory with no guide or ruler at all. It makes it really, really, REALLY hard to judge anything in any part of your day, in any part of your life.

How many flaws can i allow in someone i'm dating? Is alcoholism too much? My 'good enough' gauge is pegged so i'm in the dark. When can i stop working so people will think i've done enough. How many times do i need to re-edit that piece about perfectionism that i wrote before i can show it to someone. And on and on.

Insult by Punctuation

Punctuation can entirely change the meaning of a sentence.   We've all seen their (possessive) when the writer meant they are.
 
There is an advertising campaign that's plastered the Seattle area for the last couple of  years, mostly on bus signs, that i find annoying because of bad punctuation.   Actually it's not annoying so much as incomprehensible.  I don't know who the ad it is for, i think it's an insurance company.  It says

                We're a lot like you.
                A Little Different.

The punctuation is completely wrong. They put a period between the two phrases.  Since it's obviously wrong you have to try to figure out what the correct punctuation should be and substitute that, only then can you understand it.  They leave that up to the reader.  Most people do that unconsciously but because i have Aspergers and i'm a bit obsessive, i'm very conscious of it every time i see it.

Honestly, the problem isn't that it's wrong, that's no big deal; the problem is that there are two different possible ways to punctuate it correctly and so there are two very different ways to understand it.  There is no way to know which is the intended one, and they have very significantly different meanings.

One meaning is very insulting, the other invokes a bit of camaraderie.  The first dozen times or so that i saw the advertisement i read it the insulting way.  Even now when i read it, the insulting way seems the more likely based on how it's written.

That period is wrong.

What should it be? It cannot be a period because the second phrase is not a complete sentence; it can't be a semi-colon for the same reason. So the only possibilities are: a comma, or a colon. 

The more uncommon, academic way of reading it would be with a colon.  I suspect this is the one they intended, even though it's a more rare use, and most people would be less likely to default to that.

     We are a lot like you: a little different.

Which means --  We are all in the same boat, and together we're special, not quite like those other people.


The more common, more readily understandable way to read it would be with the comma.   It would say:

       We are a lot like you, a little different.

Which means -- "Well, we may be a bit odd, but not as weird as you are! We're not that strange!!"

Every time i see it i think they are telling me (and everyone around me) that we're too weird for them.

Gaining Elevation During Lunch

This was written by request for Washington Trails, and was published in the March-April 2010 Issue.  The magazine is a publication of of Washington Trails Association. I volunteer for WTA in a number of capacities.  


I sat on the ridge high above the Hoh River at High Divide looking across the gorgeous valley to Mount Olympus. This was my reward after a very steep hike.  I slowly ate my lunch while enjoying the afternoon clouds. I glanced at my altimeter, which told me that I was climbing fast despite having been sitting on a rock for half an hour. I jumped up and hiked quickly back down to the lake basin. I got back to camp in time: I was in the tent when the downpour started.

Why did I dash for camp?  My altimeter had given me a clue that a storm was rolling in.  Altimeters use barometric pressure - the weight of the column of air above you, pressing down on you - to calculate your elevation; or more specifically, they use the CHANGE in pressure. Weather forecasters also use the change in barometric pressure. Rising pressure means clear weather ahead, falling pressure means storms. (The lowest pressures ever measured are in the eyes of hurricanes!)

My altimeter was unaware I had stopped hiking. Since I knew I hadn't actually gained any elevation over my lunch break, I judged that the weather was changing instead -- a storm was coming up the Hoh Valley.

In a good old tube barometer, barometric pressure is measured in millimeters of mercury. Normal sea level is 760mm, meaning that the weight of the air at sea level can lift mercury, which is pretty heavy, 76 centimeters (it can lift water 10.3 meters!). Other familiar sea level measures of barometric pressure are: 29.92 inches of mercury, 14.696 Pounds Per Square Inch and 1013.25 millibars; all equal to 760mm.

Have you ever drained a soft plastic water bottle on a peak, and once you got down to the trail head, hundreds or thousands of feet below, the water bottle looked like it had been crushed by a giant's hand?  It is actually crushed by the air outside the bottle.  The pressure inside is from elevation..  That's because the air pressure is lower at higher elevations, that column of air above you is not as thick.  That's why it is harder to breathe on a high mountain!

For the altimeter to work correctly, you have to tell your altimeter where you are starting. Altimeters detect the change in the air pressure and calculate your elevation change based on a KNOWN SETTING, called the calibration. Before leaving home I calibrate mine to my home on Capitol Hill which I know is at 322 feet.  I often calibrate it again at the trailhead or elsewhere when there is a sign indicating the elevation. The more often you calibrate the more accurate the reading is.

In an altimeter an altitude reading works AGAINST the barometer reading. That is, when there is a change in the pressure it is EITHER a change in the elevation of the unit, or a change in the weather.  Modern altimeters tend to be very good at guessing if a change in pressure is weather, or elevation, but it is still just a guess.  So you have to think about it when you look at the readout. For example, I woke up one morning during an extremely rainy night in the North Cascades and discovered that, according to my altimeter, my tent had gained 280 feet while I slept. I was pretty sure my tent had not been climbing by itself, usually I have to carry it.

Modern GPS units have an elevation component which works by using satellite timing rather than air pressure. They are not as accurate as barometric altimeters, but they are getting better.  You can check one against the other.  The GPS elevation is not susceptible to changes in the weather but it is less accurate than an altimeter using barometric pressure.

An altimeter can be pretty handy thing to have in the in the backcountry.  I use the altimeter when reading a map to get an idea of which topo line i am actually standing on; it's like having a third dimension for the map! Hikers (and cyclists) use them to gauge the amount of climbing on a day's hike or ride, and therefore the difficulty.  Skiers use altimeters to determine how far they have descended on a run, and even to count how many runs they've made.  I've even used it to report the location of an injury when a party i encountered needed a rescue.

Just for fun, here are some calibration points around Washington for you:  (all are in feet above sea level)

•      33 Lake Samamish State Park (boat ramp)
•      39 Puyallup Fair Grounds
•      112 Tatoosh Island (lighthouse base)
•      117 Washington State Capitol (north door)
•      117 Pike Place Market (Rachel the Pig)
•      272 Rainbow Falls State Park
•      481 Hanford (main building)
•      482 Salish Lodge
•      520 Space Needle (observation deck)
•      569 Maryhill (Stonehenge)
•   1,047 Pot Holes Reservoir
•   1,310 Grand Coulee Dam (top)
•   1,768 Winthrop (main street)
•   2,368 Mt Constitution (lookout)
•   4,314 Johnston Ridge Visitor's Center (Mt St Helens)
•   4,551 Upper Lena Lake
•   4,790 Rainy Lake (SR 20)
•   5,858 Mt Spokane Lookout
•   6,409 Sunrise Ranger Station
• 14,410 Columbia Crest (Mt Rainier)

The Ultimate Cycling Food

I was riding with a great bunch of tree-huggers on Boxing Day.

Most of the time i'm middle of the pack, but this bunch was fast, i was the second slowest; and midway through our 64 hilly miles the slowest guy got dropped. It was fast, but it was fun. Right after we dropped the guy from Kansas (Vashon is not flat!), we came to the highway and turned left. Jon, who had never been on Vashon Island before asked which way the food was. He sighed when Kent said that it was the other way. I needed food too, but i didn't say anything. I usually eat almonds or granola bars on the bike, but my pockets were empty.

It took a little extra effort, but i stayed with the group on the loop south and back around on West Side Highway. When we turned back north, Brad turned off to catch the ferry from the south point of the island. I was having a really great time but eventually it happened: i bonked. And it was a serious dropping-off-the-cliff bonk; one minute i was powering up the hill with these randonneurs and 4 minutes later i could barely the turn the cranks a flat half mile to the highway.

They waited for me. On the last hill up into town Mark rode up next to me, put his hand on the small of my back and just pushed me up the hill. I really don't know how i would've made it otherwise. I was extremely thankful, but i could only grunt one word: "Milkshake".

At the top of the hill Jon and Kent were standing there pointing to a sign on a quaint little local burger bar. The sign said: "Come in and eat or we'll both starve!" Even forgetting the economy for a moment i found that to be very deep. It was advice that none of us could resist.


In addition to a garden burger and fries, i got my milkshake. It made me happy, but more importantly, it brought me back.

Once we were at the table stuffing our faces i explained why i believe Milkshakes are the ultimate cycling food.

First of all it's got fat. Fat is the oak log of energy. It burns slow and it burns long. This might not be so great if you're sitting at a desk, in a car or on the couch, but it's exactly what you want on the bike. It stays with you. For most people a milkshake will continue to fuel you for about 35 miles. For me it's about 20, but i'm weird.

Second, it's got sugar. Simple sucrose. This is the kindling, the fast burning twigs and paper of energy. It burns very quickly; you feel it almost instantly. (It goes away very fast too!) So if you're starting to drag, it gives you power to sprint down the road, if you're bonking, like i was, it restores you.

Third it's got lactose which is a complex sugar, about half the way to a carbohydrate. It's a medium burner, the dry pine log of energy, and will last longer than the sucrose.

And as the American Dairy council never misses a chance of telling us, milk has protein. Not only does that help restore overused muscles, but it helps to create the enzymes that regulate how quickly the energy, the glucose, is fed in to your bloodstream over time. It regulates your fuel flow.

Of course a milkshake also has fluids which you always need on the bike, no one ever drinks enough. And it's easy and quick to consume, i've even carried them in my bottle cage!

All of that is really important, but there are two other very important reasons why milkshakes are the ultimate bicycling food. They taste good. This sounds basic, but it's actually really key. I don't know how many times i've seen folks, even some who were actually bonking, holding on to a Power Bar, a gel, or some other gross non-food. But they weren't eating it, they were staring at it, and that doesn't fuel your body. So tasting good is great because you eat it: you actually consume it, probably quickly; and you finish it.

And lastly, in the US at least, you can find a milkshake almost anywhere. Every town, no matter how small, is going to have a restaurant, burger bar or establishment of some sort where you can get a milkshake, often a good one. Even between towns on the lonely roads there is often a possibility. This might be the most important feature. Showing up is 80%. If it's not there, it can't fuel you. Milkshakes are great fuel, they are yummy and they show up.

The rest of the day i rode hard. I had half the milkshake at the burger bar and the other half went in my bottle cage for me to enjoy on the ferry. We rode until the shadows were long. It was a good day.

Photos from the Boxing Day ride

I did a wonderful ride on frosty roads on Vashon Island Saturday. Kent wrote about it.

Burma road was one of the most glorious roads i've ever been on, and in the icy conditions it was exciting.  Undoubtedly a hazing ritual for the Kansan.

I've got a more in depth post coming, but i wanted to get some of the nicer photos up.

Mark Van De Camp greets the Olympic Mountain sunrise from the ferry.

Liam Moriarty is in awe of Burma Road.

We stopped at the famous Vashon Island Tree Bike.

Tree Huggers!!  Tom, Liam, me Jon, Kent, Brad, Mark

Jon, Liam, Tom, Brad & Mark hug the tree just to prove Kent's son right.

Burma Road

Sunshine and mist, quiet roads, calm water, and sea lions.

Mark Van De Camp and Kent Peterson on the frosty pier.

Brad Hawkins contemplates the calm Salish Sea.

Tom Moriarty and his brother Liam enjoy the exercycle artwork on the edge of the water.

I'm racing Liam Moriarty!

 
Brad, Jon, Mark, Liam, Kent & Tom at our mid-day stop at the Robinson Point Lighthouse.

new annual milage record

I really don't want to be a mileage weeny. I want to not care about miles ridden at all. But i do. I'm naturally a statistic fanatic, i love numbers, i love math, i love playing with numbers, i love making graphs, and i always have. Tracking my bike miles comes naturally to me. I try not to be too obsessed with it, and i try to use numbers to observe and record what i DO, rather than do things to effect the numbers.

Mostly these days i track my mileage by the month rather than the day. I find it a more relaxed way, a compromise i guess. I've found a way to mount my cyclometer underneath my handlebars so i can't see it while i'm riding. I only reset it on the first of the month. I reset it yesterday, so i was aware of what happened today while riding home from Gene's house in Bremerton.

I passed my all time annual mileage record of 3,450 set back in 1980! I outrode my 16 year old self!! I have to admit i'm very excited.



In looking at the significant increase in my miles recently, i have to wonder why. I think i have discovered that there was an important change in my riding style. When i moved to Seattle in 1992 i had only the one bike, a Bridgstone RB-T, which i loved. It was a touring bike, kind of a cyclocross bike, but i had it set up as a road bike and used it really only as a road bike. I quickly found that i didn't like riding it in the city. It didn't feel like the right bike for conditions. Once i realized that i wasn't riding regularly, i gave in and bought a second bike, a Univega Rover -- a basic hardtail mountain bike with slick tires, i called it my Urban Assault Vehicle and i loved zipping around the city, hopping curbs, skirting along gravel trails and what not.

I soon noticed that my annual mileage jumped significantly. I was riding more. That was good. I had two bikes for different conditions. I had a transportation bike and a recreation bike. I had a bike that i hopped on with whatever shoes and clothing i was wearing, and a bike where i had to wear the right shoes, clothes, everything. I continued in that system for about 15 years. I had one bike that i used only for 40 miles or longer, and another that i used for 3 to 12 mile rides.

Last year i set up my Bianchi Volpe as a regular riding bike. It's a great bike, technically a cyclecross bike, it combines the best aspects of a road bike and a city bike, a mountain bike and a racing bike. It's durable, fast, comfortable. For the first year i had it i didn't really have it set up for me. It wasn't comfortable, it didn't feel right. But once i put some work into it, put a new stem on it, made it fit me and my riding style, i started riding it.

The real change happened when my Univega frame cracked in November 2007. After that the Bianchi became my primary bike. It quickly became my primary city bike, but since it is so comfortable and versatile, i slowly started using it as my primary road bike too. AND it goes off road on trails too.


Here's that same graph as above, only color coded by bicycle.



I think the biggest difference, the thing that most caused that big jump in mileage this year was getting rid of the distance restrictions on my bikes. Before, with one bike for 40-100 miles and one for 0-10, i didn't have any way to ride 10-35 mile rides. So... i didn't do any. Now most of my rides are in that range. More flexibility, more riding, more often. I like it.



I even sold the Bridgestone, so i am a one bike guy again. Sure, i sometimes wish i had a folding bike, or a neighborhood cruiser, or a hard core mountain bike, a feather light event bike or a big old cargo bike; and it's always nice to have a backup -- if something goes wrong. But i like just having one bike, it more reflects the way i live, my philosophy.

I'm not suffering, this bike does it all, and does it pretty well. It's a cargo bike, a city bike, a road bike, a touring bike, a neighborhood bike, a mountain bike. And i've found that having one bike, no choice, get on and ride, one bike that does everything, means that i ride more often. And that's good.

Novara Rainy Pass Bike Gloves - Men's

I have had FIVE pairs of these gloves going back to when they first appeared at REI in the mid 1990s. I have found them to be very useful and very dependable; although the design changes over the years have often been a step backwards.

I ride in all weather, commuting daily with frequent, all day recreational rides, totaling 3,000-4,000 miles a year. I live in Seattle where winter is in the upper 30s to upper 40s and frequently wet (although less so these last few years).

I swear by these gloves. They have generally lasted for about 3 years of heavy daily use. They are great in the 38 to 48 degree range -- our normal winter weather. Above that they are too warm and below that my fingers start to be a little cold (i often carry liners that i wear under them on the rare occasion that a Seattle night is too cold for them). They are smooth and comfortable inside and allow plenty of dexterity. They are as breathable as is possible in a warm glove and they are light and pack easily in a truck bag or backpack.

They are GREAT in the Seattle rain. They get wet but keep my hands warm, just as they should. Perfect. If i stop and take them off for a long time when they are wet, i sit on them to warm them back up (or even microwave them for 4 or 5 seconds) and they keep me warm and happy. At work in the winter i often place them on my computer monitor so they are dry when i leave.

I have recommended them to many people over the years.

There ARE some concerning issues.

The palm padding on the new models is far too thin,
the newer models are not as warm
some years the inner seams have had too much extra fabric.
the most recent pair i bought wore holes in them very quickly.

The first pair i had, in the early 1990s was when they were gray. I completely wore out that first pair; i wore them for years, until they were falling apart. I bought second pair - still gray. Unfortunately within just a few months i lost one of the gloves. So i bought a third pair, also gray, and i wore them a couple of years until they were close to wearing out with a few holes and seems starting to split open; i threw them in the closet in the spring.

The next year i bought another pair but the inner seams were badly trimmed. The thick excess fabric inside made it hard to shift and eliminated all dexterity aside from just being uncomfortable. I was very disappointed. I returned that pair and bought a different brand glove.

Several years later i noticed a new redesigned model, now black, but clearly the same glove. So I bought a fourth pair and wore it for a couple of years. When started to get a few holes i decided to buy another pair, but they had the same inner seam problem as the third pair i had so i didn't buy them. I continued to use the fourth pair for yet another year.

In 2008 i found the newest model (black) had solved the seam problem and were smooth on the inside again allowing dexterity. So i bought a fifth pair! Early in the winter of 2009-2010 i lost one of that pair, and was lucky enough that the one i had left was a mate to the lost glove from the second pair, which i still had in the bottom of a box!

So this winter i have been wearing a mixed pair, a 1999 gray model on the left and a 2008 black model on the right. They work well, and riding with the different generations side by side has allowed me to really compare the two.



The older model from 1999 is thicker and much warmer than the 2008 glove. The new one is not warm enough. The newer one has much less palm padding, it feels like riding without padding, but the glove from 1999 is well padded, comfortable, and much more like a cycling glove! The older one seems more durable, than the new one, even though it's had more abuse. The older one fits somewhat more snuggly increasing my dexterity (i can operate my cyclometer or mobile phone with the old glove, but not with the new one). The new one has finger tip reinforcement which is VERY useful as that is the primary failure point on the old model. The older glove is splitting at the seams. The newer one has reinforced seems, is a nicer, more neoprene like fabric, but has torn easily.

I'm hopeful that next year's model is black with the reinforced fingertips, and smooth inside seems, but is thicker, snugger and with more palm padding like the older model.