Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Mapping the Oceans

Carta Marina, by Olaus Magnus, 1539.

From Latham Quarterly by Helen M. Rozwadowski

How cartographers saw the world in the Age of Discovery.

Johannes Gutenberg printed his first Bible in 1455, and the first published sailing directions appeared thirty-five years later.
Print media encouraged the divergence of navigational information from material discussing the commercial prospects of trade at various ports.
Printing promoted the widespread distribution of geographic and hydrographic information, including maps, to readers throughout Europe at a time when literacy was on the rise and the spreading use of vernacular languages made such works available to non-scholars.

Discovery of the sea leaned heavily on geographical and maritime information available from learned sources, including Arabic texts and rediscovered Greek texts.
The Renaissance rediscovery of classical Greek learning included geographic writings of Herodotus, Aristotle, and Ptolemy, each of whom rejected the traditional view of an oceanic river flowing around a circular world.
Ptolemy’s Geography, restored to Europe from Byzantium early in the fifteenth century, countered the Earth island idea with a view that oceans were entirely separated by landmasses, a model challenged by Magellan’s achievement of sailing between oceans.

Europe’s explorers actively sought and exploited both academic knowledge and geographic experience in their systematic search for new trade routes.
Use of the sea ultimately rested on reliable knowledge of the ocean.
Fresh appreciation for empirical evidence fueled recognition of the value of experience, and the process of exploration included mechanisms for accumulating and disseminating new geographic knowledge to form the basis for future navigation.

At the outset of the discovery of the seas, portolan charts recorded actual experiences at sea.
These navigational aids provided mariners with compass direction and estimated the distance between coastal landmarks or harbors.
Utterly novel for their time, portolans were the first charts to attempt to depict scale.
Portolans created by fourteenth- and fifteenth-century explorers document Portuguese and Spanish discovery of Atlantic islands and the African coast and helped subsequent mariners retrace their steps.
Accuracy of portolans was best over shorter distances, and they became less useful when navigators steered offshore.

Kunstmann II, or Four Finger Map, c. 1502‒6.
This portolan chart was copied by an Italian cartographer from a Portuguese original.
World Digital Library, Bavarian State Library.

In contrast to creators of portolans, armchair cartographers compiled world maps of little use for actual navigation but which reflected shifting knowledge of oceans.
While manuscript maps had been produced alongside written manuscripts since antiquity, the earliest known printed map was included in an encyclopedia of 1470.
It represents the world schematically within a circle, in which the three continents of Asia, Europe, and Africa are surrounded by an ocean river and separated from each other by horizontal and vertical rivers that form a T shape—hence the name “T-O” to describe this kind of map.
Other early maps were based on Ptolemy’s work, on biblical stories or other allegories, or occasionally on portolans.

Cartographers created maps for patrons or in hopes of selling printed copies, generally seeking recent information about the ocean from a wide variety of sources, including published maps and books, manuscripts, reports from mariners and other voyagers, and, perhaps in a few cases, personal experience.
Medieval bestiaries, or illustrated compendia of animals, provided models for sea monsters that appeared on maps, but Renaissance cartographers also borrowed from classical images, such as stylized dolphins from ancient Rome.
Legends such as the tale from St.
Brendan of running aground on an island that turned out to be the back of a whale inspired pictures on maps of mariners making fires on the backs of enormous animals mistaken for oceanic isles.
Medieval maps that included sea monsters or other astonishing or exotic marine creatures often portrayed these as oceanic versions of terrestrial animals, such as sea dogs, sea pigs, or sea lions, following an ancient theory that the ocean harbored animals equivalent to those on land.

Although the majority of medieval maps and nautical charts of the Age of Discovery did not include sea monsters, the ones that do reveal both a rise of general interest in marvels and wonders and a specific concern for maritime activities that took place at sea, including in far distant oceans.
The more exotic creatures are often positioned on maps at the edge of the Earth, conveying a sense of mystery and danger and perhaps discouraging voyages in those areas.
Images of octopuses or other monsters attacking ships would seem to be warning of dangers to navigation.
A striking depiction of King Manuel of Portugal riding a sea monster near Africa’s southern tip, from Martin Waldseemüller’s 1516 Carta Marina, displayed Portuguese mastery and political control over the sea.

Plate 11 of Carta Marina, by Martin Waldseemüller, 1516.
Library of Congress.

The most famous representations of sea monsters in the sixteenth century frolic on the Carta Marina created by the Swedish priest Olaus Magnus and published in 1539.
The map covers Scandinavia south to northern Germany, east to Finland, and including the Atlantic to the south and slightly west of Iceland.
Land is represented with much detail, but so too is the ocean.
There are real as well as nonexistent islands and ships carrying cargo or fishing.
The sea is full of dynamic marine creatures, some recognizable as whales, sea lions, lobsters, or other species of economic value but others more fantastic or menacing.
Monsters attacking ships from Protestant countries may reflect the exiled Magnus’ displeasure at reformation after Sweden broke from the Catholic Church.

In addition to his map, Magnus also wrote detailed descriptions of his sea monsters in his book, whose translated title is History of Northern Peoples (1555).
While some of his marine creatures derived from bestiaries or legend, such as his account of a two-hundred-foot sea serpent living near Bergen, Norway, others of his depictions were original, and some may reflect reports of unfamiliar animals.
Mariners returned home with stories of strange creatures they saw at sea, including giant whales and sharks, as well as narwhals with single helical tusks up to ten feet in length.
Until explorers discovered the truth, narwhal teeth were sold in Europe and the Far East as unicorn horns.
The European court knew the ocean to be the source of strange and precious objects such as coral, pearls, and mollusk shells, which began to appear in seventeenth-century cabinets of curiosities alongside dried sea horses, turtle shells, and shark’s teeth.
The Swiss naturalist Conrad Gessner assembled existing knowledge about marine life in his 1558 Fisch-Buch (Fish Book), which listed about eight hundred creatures.
He drew upon mariners’ tales, requested drawings and specimens from sources throughout Europe, and traveled to the Venice fish market to study for several months.
Embracing the variety of living forms as proof of divine creation, Gessner’s work included both real and mythological creatures.
His Historia animalium, published over the course of the 1550s, featured a unicorn among the terrestrial animals, while his sea animals included mermaids, a walrus with feet, and a number of monsters taken from Magnus’ work.
Numerous other authors and cartographers similarly copied or borrowed Magnus’ influential images.

From Conrad Gessner, Historia animalium, vol. 4 (1557).
The Internet Archive.

The detail captured and information conveyed in the ocean spaces of many maps testified to the extent, liveliness, and importance of maritime activity and its oceanic setting.
Representations of marine creatures and other cartographic choices revealed to the viewer of a map what was normally hidden, rendering the ocean as a thoroughly three-dimensional space full of life and activity.
Magnus depicted the sea’s surface as highly textured by filling all ocean space with horizontally oriented dotted lines, occasionally interrupted by wake from a moving vessel or a surfacing animal.
Textured surfaces, identifiable marine creatures or exotic and forbidding monsters, and ships busily prosecuting maritime work fill map space devoted to the ocean on many cartographic works produced through the sixteenth century.
The amount of such decorative detail on a map might depend on the amount of money a patron was willing to spend.

Medieval maps published in the first fifty years after the printing press often included textured oceans, represented sometimes with parallel lines and other times with broken, wavy lines.
Some allegorical maps likewise featured oceans filled with lines denoting a watery surface, calling attention to what might lie beneath, while other maps that divided ocean space by latitude and longitude left oceans blank but used sea creatures and ships as decorative elements symbolizing maritime activity.

One detail on the Magnus map would seem to speak to navigators.
In the area east of Iceland and extending to north of the Faroe Islands, there is a band of carefully drawn whorls, which modern oceanographers argue may represent the Iceland–Faroes front.
Here, cold Arctic water currents coming around the coast of Iceland mix with warmer water from the Gulf Stream flowing north to form strong eddies that could drive a ship off course.
Trade conducted between Iceland and the European continent by mariners of the Hanseatic League brought dried cod and other products from Iceland to exchange for grain, beer, wood, and textiles.
Navigators certainly noticed temperature differences and also variations in surface currents, and this information was likely conveyed to Magnus during visits to northern German cities.
One other map of Scandinavia from Brussels, made in the late fifteenth century, may portray this same oceanic feature also with a series of whorls.
In neither map are there such curls shown anywhere else in the ocean, suggesting they were meant to represent a specific feature, one no doubt long known by Hansa navigators and Vikings before them.

Maps became more useful to navigators when cartographers created projections that could represent the spherical Earth on the flat, printed page.
For open-ocean journeys, long-distance voyaging navigators turned to the Mercator projection (1569), which showed the latitude and longitude grid and corrected for the Earth’s curvature such that lines of a compass heading could be represented on the chart as straight lines or, as sailors called them, rhumb lines (loxodromes).
This made it possible to keep track on the chart of a route sailed by dead reckoning.
With the addition of celestial navigation, mariners could use observations of the height of stars or the Sun taken with quadrants to find their latitude and correct mistakes that arose from magnetic variation or dead reckoning navigation.
Mariners would not gain the ability to find their longitude until the late eighteenth century.

Knowledge recorded on Mercator projection charts prioritized actual observations, soon to be prized by scholars associated with changes wrought by the Scientific Revolution, generally understood to begin with Nicolaus Copernicus and the publication just before his death in 1543 of his model of the universe with the Sun rather than the Earth at the center.
Cartographer Gerard Mercator himself sought the newest and most trustworthy sources of information for his work, shifting from copying Magnus’ sea monsters in the terrestrial globe he created in 1541 to using recent natural history publications for his subsequent famous 1569 world map.
He moved his most exotic creatures from the regions around Africa, Asia, and the Indian Ocean, where most cartographers before then had placed sirens and other dangerous or mysterious monsters, to waters off South America and the Pacific Ocean, signaling the rise of geographic interest in these relatively less traveled parts of the globe.

 
Typus Orbis Terrarum, by Abraham Ortelius, 1570.
Wikimedia Commons, Library of Congress.

A friend and rival of Mercator, Abraham Ortelius, created a world map in 1570 that included elements by then common in visual representations of the ocean as well as some newer features.
He textured the sea’s surface with stippling over all of the ocean space on his map, but he also divided that space with lines of latitude and longitude.
There is one ship and two creatures that might be whales, possibly decorative elements but certainly also acknowledgment of maritime activity and a reference to the importance of whales as resources.
Other maps from later in the sixteenth century feature images of lifelike whales and of people whaling, including one of the North Atlantic and what is now Canada with an inset drawing of men, possibly Basques, harpooning one whale and flensing another.
This scene was copied from the first published print of Basque whale hunting at sea that had been produced a decade earlier.
This map also included whale-like monsters resembling sea monsters from older sources, but the trope of sea monsters on maps and charts was fading.

In an increasingly well-known world, monsters on maps made after the sixteenth century appeared to convey fancy or whimsy rather than danger.
Cartographers began to depict economically valuable marine animals realistically based on up-to-date natural history fostered by the growing experience of mariners.
Actual observations of nature replaced preoccupation with marvels and wonders.
Whales on charts transformed from threatening giants into swimming commodities and then disappeared entirely.
The occasional decorative ship, compass rose or nautical instrument on maps gestured to human maritime activity, but banished the ocean itself.
The gridded ocean space of the seventeenth century and beyond was most often left blank, without stippling or lines to denote the presence of the sea itself or to conjure the world hidden beneath its surface.
Blank ocean space on maps appears to reflect a revision of the sea from a dangerous and mysterious place into a knowable part of the natural world whose control enabled the exploitation of marine resources and the expansion of European power.

Reprinted with permission
from Vast Expanses: A History of the Oceans by Helen M. Rozwadowski,
published by Reaktion Books Ltd.
Copyright © 2018 by Helen M. Rozwadowski.
All rights reserved.

Tuesday, October 6, 2020

The Atlantic is awash with far more plastic than previously thought, study finds

In addition to large plastic trash, researchers estimate that more than 21 million metric tons of tiny plastic debris are floating below the Atlantic Ocean's surface. 
Michael O'Neill/Science Source

From NPR by Rebecca Hersher

Scientists are trying to understand how much plastic humans are pumping into the ocean and how long it sticks around.
A study published this week says it may be much more than earlier estimates.

By some measures, the plastic trash that's floating on the surface of the water only accounts for about 1% of the plastic pollution that humans generate.

"If we are missing 99% of plastic that we thought we have put in, it has to be somewhere," says Katsiaryna Pabortsava, a researcher at the National Oceanography Centre in the United Kingdom.

She and her colleagues set out to look for the missing plastic debris.

It's known that tiny pieces of plastic, some too small to see with the naked eye, are present throughout the environment, including in drinking water, sea salt, beer and fish.
Studies have found these pieces, often called microplastics, deep in the Pacific Ocean and in the air above France's Pyrenees mountains.

But it's been unclear how much tiny plastic pollution is accumulating in oceans.

Pabortsava and her team looked at three types of microplastic pollution in the top 200 meters of the Atlantic Ocean, and found evidence that a colossal amount of plastic is hanging out below the surface of the water.
Article continues after sponsor message

The results, published this week in the scientific journal Nature Communications, focus on three types of plastic that are used in common food and other product packaging.


Microplastics have been found inside sea animals, including turtles, off Greece.
A study suggests there is more plastic pollution in the Atlantic Ocean than previously thought.
Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP via Getty Images

The new study finds that the total amount of plastic making its way into the Earth's oceans is likely higher than previous estimates suggest.
A previous study published in 2015 estimated that upward of 12 million metric tons of plastic trash made it into the oceans in 2010 alone.
Scientists only started trying to quantify how much plastic is in the ocean in the last decade.

That analysis was never meant to present a comprehensive picture of plastic in the oceans — it only looked at municipal waste and didn't account for plastic trash from ships or fish nets lost at sea.
Nor did it estimate how long plastic pollution stays in the ocean.

"There are still huge uncertainties about how much plastic goes into the ocean," Pabortsava says.

The new study adds to what's known but is still an incomplete picture.
It estimates that there is upward of 21 million metric tons of three common types of small plastic pollution in just the top 200 meters of the Atlantic.
It's a rough estimate — the researchers took samples at 12 locations up and down the Atlantic and extrapolated from there — and there could be even more plastic of other types.

Microplastic in the ocean comes from two main sources.
Tiny spheres of plastic, called microbeads, were a common ingredient in exfoliating soaps sold in the U.S. until the federal government banned their use in personal care products in 2015.
The European Union did the same last year.
But most tiny plastic bits are remnants of larger pieces of plastic broken down by waves and sunlight.

Microplastics below the surface of the ocean are bad news for the whole food chain.
Small ocean-dwelling creatures eat them, and the plastic makes its way into larger fish and shellfish that humans eat.

It's difficult to imagine that eating tiny bits of plastic is good for humans, but the potential health impact of microplastics is still unknown.
A 2018 study noted that seafood is a critical source of sustenance around the world and that scientists should focus on figuring out how long microplastics survive in the environment and how they affect human health.

Links :

Monday, October 5, 2020

US (NOAA) layer update in the GeoGarage platform

9 nautical raster charts updated

For new robotic ships, Pentagon ignores China’s dangerous “phony war fleet”

 Why does the Pentagon downplay China's "Phony Fleet"?
Corbis via Getty Images

From Forbes by Craig Hooper

A few days after the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China,” the Navy awarded six contracts to refine the requirements for the Navy’s future Large Unmanned Surface Vessel(LUSV).

The Pentagon report on China’s emerging military prowess telegraphed the Navy’s purported need for large unmanned surface vessels, trumpeting that China “has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines”.
But, of all the worrisome things in China’s growing arsenal, China’s conventional Navy, in itself, is an odd threat to highlight.
While a strong conventional navy justifies the Pentagon’s interest in unmanned vessels, this was the wrong maritime threat to emphasize, and the report only made China’s conventional navy look far stronger than it is.

A more provocative analysis might note that, despite China’s lofty maritime aspirations, China’s conventional naval force is undersized and still dominated by a plethora of tiny, low-endurance coastal defense platforms—platforms that are little threat beyond Chinese-held waters.

And yet, while the Pentagon took to the fainting couch over China’s small conventional Navy, the Department of Defense turned an almost blind eye to China’s massive “Phony War Fleet”, a giant array of low-tech, “non-military” maritime forces.
China uses this force—a massive Coast Guard, civilian “fishing fleet” militia and an array of “ad hoc public/private” logistical partnerships—to change status quo in the maritime.
But the Pentagon glossed over the threat of the “Phony Fleet”, only granting the force a few measly paragraphs in the back of the report.

Given China’s record, the dismissal of China’s maritime shock troops is inexplicable.
China’s conventional navy is small because China uses it’s “Phony War Fleet” to fight.
Working from an expansionist-minded playbook and backed by China’s over-hyped economic reputation, China’s belligerent “wolf warrior” diplomats and China’s formidable long-range strike forces, China’s “Phony War Fleet” is not phony at all.

China’s enormous unconventional naval force might be dismissed as a “Phony War Fleet” by the Pentagon, but it is a clear and present danger anywhere from the Galapagos to Africa.

Outside of potentially Turkey, China’s “Phony War Fleet” is the only maritime force in the world capable of massing and sweeping aside established maritime order.
These are colonization-oriented shot troops, built for one thing—preying on the global maritime commons.

And while the Pentagon dreams of a low-cost robotic surface fleet, building up the reputation of China’s pipsqueak conventional Navy to get it, China’s massive “Phony War Fleet” gets a relative pass.
China’s small conventional Navy is only set to hold whatever advanced positions China’s “Phony War Fleet” can grab.
China’s “Phony War Fleet” is the present threat, and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s low-cost robots can do little to stop it.

China’s Conventional Navy Is Puny:

Given the extensive maritime threats on China’s maritime periphery, the conventional Chinese Navy remains a coastal defense sideshow, poorly-sized to contend with the big and modern navies that surround much of China’s coast.

In the First Island Chain alone, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force boasts a fleet of some 150 modern vessels.
Despite some oddly defeatist talk from some DC thinktanks, Japan maintains a formidable force of almost 30 destroyers, two pocket aircraft carriers, and one of the most modern undersea fleets in world.
Japan’s eight 10,000 ton-range Kongo, Atago and Maya class heavyweight destroyers can easily go toe-to-toe with China’s planned set of eight over-hyped but likely nuclear-armed Type 055 Renhai class cruisers.

South Korea’s green-water fleet is nothing shabby either, and Korea’s vast array of frigates, corvettes and patrol vessels can easily rebuff China’s mass of small conventional escorts.

America, even without the help of nearby friends, still outmatches China’s conventional Navy.
Of the forces arrayed in China’s 350-unit “battle force”, the Pentagon included 86 missile patrol boats.
Most of these patrol boats are 60 tiny, 220-ton missile-carrying catamarans, Type 022 Houbei class missile patrol boats.
America doesn’t even bother to count vessels of this size.
The U.S. Navy’s 13 pint-sized 336-ton Cyclone Class (PC-1) patrol craft outweigh China’s Type 022 patrol boats, yet the U.S. Navy refuses to include the Cyclones as part of America’s battle fleet.
And, while the Cyclones are mixing it up in the Persian Gulf and catching smugglers in the Caribbean, the Type 022’s are not out roaming the high seas.
The pint-sized catamarans are tough on their crews, and even if these patrol craft evolve to become “optionally unmanned” platforms, their endurance is very limited.
The Type 022s are only useful off islands, bases and other areas where China has sufficient support infrastructure in place.

China’s fearsome-seeming numbers were also bulked up by some 49 modern Jiangdao class Type 056/056A corvettes.
Type 056s comprise a second set of pint-sized, limited-mission, 1500-ton patrol vessels, half the displacement of an old American World War II-era Gearing class destroyer.
These corvettes boast a Littoral Combat Ship-sized crew, which, in America’s case, “was barely able to meet the Navy’s underway watch requirements and struggled to maintain qualified security teams while the ship was in port.”
These are simply vessels for imposing Chinese sovereignty in waters near any base China is lucky enough to establish.

On the amphibious side, much of China’s 52-ship fleet of tank and medium landing ships listed in the Pentagon’s report are obsolete and need replacing.

Certainly, if economic conditions permit, China’s conventional fleet is set to grow over time.
The report’s hyperventilation over how “China has already achieved parity with—or even exceeded—the United States” in shipbuilding is old news.
But, again, other countries have a vote here.
In 2019, South Korea outbuilt China by tonnage, with Japan and Italy following behind.

So while there are a lot of things worth worrying about in China’s military modernization, China’s conventional Navy looks awfully undersized and coastal—too small to fight, but ideal for securing and colonizing outposts that China’s expeditionary “Phony War Fleet” has already grabbed—snatched from a timorous international community that is, quite likely, too frightened by the Pentagon’s constant overestimation of the conventional Chinese “threat” to resist.

Fear China’s Sovereignty-Grabbing “Phony Fleet”

China’s massive “Phony Fleet” of low-end integrated maritime forces is well worth fearing.
But somehow, the Pentagon gave both the Chinese Coast Guard and the People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia a mere three paragraphs apiece.

That is rather light coverage for a set fast-growing forces that, time after time, have been at the center of China’s maritime colonization efforts.
It is growing in both numbers and size.
“Since 2010,” goes the report, the Chinese Coast Guard “fleet of large patrol ships (more than 1,000 tones) has more than doubled from approximately 60 to more than 130 ships”.
That’s a significant threat.
To compare, the U.S. Coast Guard has only about seventy ships of more than 1,000 tons.

The report fails to even attempt to quantify China’s burgeoning Maritime Militia, dismissing it even though this force has directly confronted U.S.
naval vessels, seized territory and led one provocation after another.
It’s the pointy edge of China’s maritime spear, and yet, the Pentagon refuses to offer any in the way of substantive analysis.

Satellite images show ships next to the exclusion zone around the Galápagos.
Nearly 300 Chinese vessels were seen between July and August.
Photograph: Oceana

The Pentagon report fails to justify the growth in both number and size of these two coordinated fleets.
Civilian sources like Ian Urbina of Slate.com offers better analysis of China’s globe-spanning and highly-subsidized fleet of 200,000 to 800,000 aggressive, militarized fishing boats.
China already operates sovereign floating sea—bases for their fishing flotillas, but the evolution of Maritime Militia and Chinese Coast Guard units to long-endurance, out-of-area operations is a significant development, worth more than a few sentences.
It suggests that China’s “Phony” force will, in the coming years, be used in an expeditionary fashion, coordinating the irresponsible despoiling of shared maritime commons with unilateral grabs of maritime territory.

Only a big and unified armada of manned, boarding-ready Coast Guard-like ships can stop China’s “Phony War Fleet.”
A lawless “Phony War Fleet” bent only upon maritime mayhem and industrial-sized colonization will fail only if it is constantly confronted and discomfited.
Until a robotic surface fleet can do the delicate and dangerous work of constant confrontation, managing a relentless tempo of visit, board, search and seizure missions, Mark Esper’s effete fleet of robot surface ships will do little to stop China’s creeping colonization of the global maritime.

Links :

Sunday, October 4, 2020

Hurricane speedwindsurfing

As a part of Prince of Speed 2020 La Palme - Occitanie, Andy Laufer had the opportunity, to do a few runs with the 2 fastest windsurfers in the world - Antoine Albeau / France and Vincent Valkenaers / Belgium. Tried some new cam angles with my brandnew Hero9Black.
Also tried to go as close as possible to my teammates, wich is not always easy in those conditions.
Winds between 30 and 70! knots wich was insane!
At lunch time nature told us to have a break, it was not even possible to start.
If you crash or wipeout in those winds, your gear is gone.
After about 3 hours we hit the water again and had great fun Speed Windsurfing again.
Unfortunately we could't start the WordSpeedTour as it was too risky for the rescue boat.
Our speeds were around 90 - 94 km/h Topspeeds.
Not the fastest day but a day to remember, soo beautiful!