hausdok Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Sometimes conditions are just right to see this sucker from Seattle. Click to Enlarge 18.24 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOB Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 This time of year you either got really lucky or you are amazing at photoshop?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence McCann Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Beautiful Mike - thanks for sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted October 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 This time of year you either got really lucky or you are amazing at photoshop?!?!?! Wasn't me, it was the listing agent on a house I did. She apparently took it from an upstairs window earlier in the fall. Still, there are days when you suddenly turn a corner and that sucker is staring right at you and looks about two or three times it's normal size. I'm told it's something about the atmospherics that magnifies it so much. Whatever it is, it's pretty kewl. OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 It's a beautiful view. Why, I was flying over Kenmore just the other day looking down at the lake front and when I looked up, there it was just staring me right in the face![:-angel][:-angel][:-angel] 60 some miles away, but there it was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Awesome pic..... I was in the Gorge one time and I remember being able to see Mt. St. Helens, which was about 45 miles away. It looked magnified, and about 4 miles away. We figured there had to be some atmospheric effect creating the illusion, similar to the harvest moon effect, where the moon looks 5 times larger than it really is as it crests the horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Is Rainer dormant or extinct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Saunders Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 I can see it in the photo, its not extinct, it's still there. Is it just so polluted you normally can't see this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kibbel Posted October 30, 2009 Report Share Posted October 30, 2009 Is Rainer dormant or extinct? Google "lahar". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 We figured there had to be some atmospheric effect creating the illusion, similar to the harvest moon effect, where the moon looks 5 times larger than it really is as it crests the horizon. http://www.howstuffworks.com/question491.htm http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/t ... 903-2.html I think the mountain thing is the same and has to do with our perception rather than any actual magnification. There's one stretch of road I travel on regularly where, on a clear day, you get this great view of Rainier framed by the buildings, trees, etc on each side of the road. It appears to be much larger there than open views of it, even when much closer to the mountain. Take a look at the photos on this page.. http://homepage.mac.com/wildlifeweb/sea ... htmlNotice how the more focused view of the last photo makes Rainier look much larger than the wide ange shot above it. It's all in our heads! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Saunders Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 "We figured there had to be some atmospheric effect creating the illusion, similar to the harvest moon effect, where I think the mountain thing is the same and has to do with our perception rather than any actual magnification. " To a point I agree, but how do you explain photos? Do you assume we know it is really far away and our perception enlarges the moon or mountain in the photos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Moore Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I really can't explain it any better than the stuff you can find online but I'd guess your focus and the relative backgrounds and foregrounds have a lot to do with it. I tried the moon size thing (using a ruler at arms length) many years ago and it's definitely true that it's actually the same size at the horizon as when it's higher in the sky. But, even knowing that for a fact, it still looks bigger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Is Rainer dormant or extinct? Haven't you ever watched the History Channel with their "What Happens When Disasters Happen" stuff? Kinda sensationalist goofiness, but with a few interesting underlying realities and scientific facts. They did one on Rainier and Seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 "We figured there had to be some atmospheric effect creating the illusion, similar to the harvest moon effect, where I think the mountain thing is the same and has to do with our perception rather than any actual magnification. " To a point I agree, but how do you explain photos? Do you assume we know it is really far away and our perception enlarges the moon or mountain in the photos? It's a matter of juxtaposition. The most dramatic effect comes from having the moon next to a terrestrial object and then being far enough away from the terrestrial object that it appears small next to the moon. But our brains don't say, "Gee that terrestrial object looks smaller than the moon because the terrestrial object is so far away from my eye." They say, "Gee, the moon looks bigger than that terrestrial object. Gosh whiz, what an alarming sight!" To capture the effect with a photo, the camera needs to "perceive" the image in the same way that your brain does. If you happen to see a giant moon effect and snap a picture of it, the picture often turns out to be very disappointing -- particularly if you shoot with a normal lens (a 50mm lens on a film camera or a 35mm lens on most digital cameras). You end up with a small moon and a small terrestrial object -- both in the middle of a large scene. The scope of the picture shows how far away the terrestrial object is and you lose the effect. This happens because, even though the camera lens has a smaller field of view than our eyes, our brains are capable of "zooming" in on only a small portion of the scene. A picture like that could be saved by cropping only the relevant, tiny, portion that includes the moon and the terrestrial object. But most pictures don't have enough resolution to do that. The best way to capture the effect with a camera is to include a familiar object as a frame of reference and shoot from a distance with a long lens. In this way, you get the compressed perspective given by distance along with a very tight field of view that doesn't make it apparent just how far away the camera was. I've attached an example. This was shot in the month of May, so it's not a "harvest" moon, and because of the hillside, the moon isn't particularly low in the sky -- it's probably at least 20 degrees above the horizon. It looks large because of its juxtaposition to the buildings. In fact, the moon looks larger than the house so our brains tend to think that the moon is huge. In reality, the house is about two miles away from where I was standing, so it looked very small. It only looks large in the photo because I was using a 300mm lens and because the final image is a 100% crop from the original photo. - Jim Katen, Oregon Download Attachment: Moon Over North Yamhill 1 Crop.jpg 65.8 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted November 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Yesterday from the front deck of a house I was doing that overlooks Lake Washington in Kirkland. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Click to Enlarge 8.9 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erby Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Dang, Mike. Your picture is SO MUCH BETTER than mine! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted November 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Is Rainer dormant or extinct? They have geological history that Mt. Rainier blows its nose about every 600,000 years, give or take a 100,000 years or so, and that it's now considered to be long overdue. I remember hearing someplace over the past weekend (I think it was as I was taking a nappy on the sofa with the television on.) that some scientists are now saying that they've got evidence that Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Hood and Mt. Baker are all interconnected below ground and are all actually one huge super volcano ready to go. If I'm remembering it correctly, there are a bunch of volcanologists and other scientific gurus that think this first group has their heads tucked up their backsides. Sure hope that's the case. Maybe I should invest in a snowmobile suit and an oxygen bottle, so that if it is one big volcano and blows its stack I'll be able to not freeze and stay alive long enough to see Saturn's rings as I fly by with the rest of everyone in the state. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kibbel Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 You won't be flying into space when it blows. You'll be swept away in mud. Like I said in an earlier post, Google "lahar". My folks used to live in a house within view of Mt Rainier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted November 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Hi Bill, Yeah, I know what a lahar is. The folks down in Orting have special sirens in their town and have lahar drills all the time. However, it's nearly 100 miles to Rainier from here and there isn't any lahar that's gonna roll this far. However, if there is a super volcano underneath us and it were to blow like the one in Yellowstone did so long ago, I might get a pretty good ride out of it. One can only dream. Yee Haw! ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Kibbel Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 I'm geographically challenged. I don't know why I was thinking you were south of Seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Katen Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Is Rainer dormant or extinct? They have geological history that Mt. Rainier blows its nose about every 600,000 years, give or take a 100,000 years or so, and that it's now considered to be long overdue. I remember hearing someplace over the past weekend (I think it was as I was taking a nappy on the sofa with the television on.) that some scientists are now saying that they've got evidence that Rainier, Mt. St. Helens, Mt. Hood and Mt. Baker are all interconnected below ground and are all actually one huge super volcano ready to go. . . . If that's the case, it seems like Mt. St. Helens is the TPR valve for the group. Wouldn't its tantrum in '81 and it's subsequent steam venting help to calm the others? - Jim Katen, Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 The line of eruptions aligns with the tectonic plate seams; with movement of the plate, any one of those babies could blow. At least, that's what I read in some review of the phenomenon. Jeez, Mr. O, the History Channel has a complete 3D computer generated action show of Seattle being buried in mud.......if I can't believe the TV, what can I believe??!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted November 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 The line of eruptions aligns with the tectonic plate seams; with movement of the plate, any one of those babies could blow. At least, that's what I read in some review of the phenomenon. Jeez, Mr. O, the History Channel has a complete 3D computer generated action show of Seattle being buried in mud.......if I can't believe the TV, what can I believe??!? Really? Dang! I've got to watch that channel more often. Mud or ash? It's a long way to that sucker from downtown Seattle; and, since the winds generally blow from the south and west, I'm not sure that ash would reach Seattle since Rainier is southeast of downtown. Then you've got all of the hills and valleys between Seattle and Rainier. Seems like they'd capture most of that muck and slow it down. Of course, they say that Rainier is high enough to create its own weather pattern, so maybe it's possible for an eruption to reverse the normal wind patterns and for ash to come from that direction. In any event, I'm about another 12 miles north of the city and there's a big-assed lake and some pretty damned high hills between me and that sucker. I think if I hunkered down I'd be fine regardless. Unless it dumped into the lake and raised the water level, in which case, I'd have to move my office upstairs or get soaked. Then again, if it were to trigger a friggin' quake, things could get a little dicey around here. The Nisqually quake in 1991 was a sphincter puckerer. I didn't crap for about ten days after that. Putting on my asbestos under-breeches just in case. [:-scared] ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 My brother lived in Yakima when St. Helens blew.....Yakima's about 110 kilometers SE of St. Helens; his house was buried in thick ash. When they cleaned out Yakima, it was somewhere in the vicinity of 550,000 metric tons of ash. Several millions tons of ash was deposited up and down the valley. I never thought about the prevailing westerlies pushing ash away from Seattle. I guess ya don't wanna be SE of any of them that blow; you'll get buried like Pompeii. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Lozier Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 My brother lived in Yakima when St. Helens blew.....Yakima's about 110 kilometers SE of St. Helens; his house was buried in thick ash. When they cleaned out Yakima, it was somewhere in the vicinity of 550,000 metric tons of ash. Several millions tons of ash was deposited up and down the valley. I never thought about the prevailing westerlies pushing ash away from Seattle. I guess ya don't wanna be SE of any of them that blow; you'll get buried like Pompeii. Actually Yakima is mostly NE of St Helens.... my wife lived here also when it blew, there was 1++ feet of ash everywhere, roofs/awnings collaspsed, car engines ruined... Some of the stuff had a consistancy of flour, although some was more like sand. I lived in Longview WA area which is S and W of St Helens about 30 miles. We got no ash that Sunday as it all blew East (Towards Spokane and Idaho), however the next weekend it rained and wind was from the Northeast and it literally rained ash, slicker than ice on the hills, blew transformers, I ( and many others) who had wood roofs that rotted out within 2 years. And when it dried there was only maybe a quarter inch of ash, can't imagine what it would have been like with a foot of wet ash... Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.