DOCSLIB.ORG

Dark Sky Project the Study of Light Pollution and Its Effects on Mount Desert Island for the Acadia National Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dark Sky Project the Study of Light Pollution and Its Effects on Mount Desert Island for the Acadia National Park Dark Sky Project The study of light pollution and its effects on Mount Desert Island for the Acadia National Park An Interactive Qualifying Project submitted to the faculty of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Submitted by: Andrew Larsen Joshua Morse Mario Rolón Sarah Roth Submitted to: Project Advisors: Prof. Frederick Bianchi Project Liaison: Acadia National Park July, 31 2013 Table of Contents Authorship..................................................................................................................................... IV Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... V Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... VI Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... VII Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 11 Chapter 2: Background ................................................................................................................. 12 2.1 Acadia National Park ....................................................................................................... 12 2.1.1 The Community ....................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Previous Research ............................................................................................................ 14 2.3 Light Pollution ................................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Ecological and Physiological Impacts of Light Pollution ............................................... 17 2.4.1 Ecological Impacts ................................................................................................... 17 2.4.2 Physiological Impacts .............................................................................................. 19 2.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Calendar ........................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Preparation and Equipment Testing ................................................................................. 21 3.2.1 Assessing Locations ................................................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Equipment Testing ................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Acquiring Raw Light Pollution Data ............................................................................... 23 3.4 Mapping Data .................................................................................................................. 24 3.4.1 Geographic Information System .............................................................................. 25 3.4.2 Bortle Scale .............................................................................................................. 26 3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................... 28 4.1 Collection of Data ............................................................................................................ 29 4.2 GIS Maps ......................................................................................................................... 30 4.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.3.1 Lens Difference ........................................................................................................ 34 4.3.2 Season Difference .................................................................................................... 35 4.3.3 Reasoning for the Bortle Scale ................................................................................. 36 4.3.4 Points of Interest ...................................................................................................... 36 Chapter 5: Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 41 5.1 Study Continuation and Expansion .................................................................................. 41 5.1.1 Summer Study .......................................................................................................... 41 5.1.2 Winter Study ............................................................................................................ 43 5.1.3 Schoodic Peninsula .................................................................................................. 43 5.2 Time-Lapse Graphs .......................................................................................................... 43 Chapter 6: Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 44 Appendix A: Python Program ....................................................................................................... 46 Appendix B: Light Readings and GPS Coordinates ..................................................................... 48 Appendix C: Magnitudes per Square Arcsecond (mag/arcsec2) ................................................... 51 Appendix D: Extra Maps .............................................................................................................. 52 Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 56 Table of Figures Figure 1: Map of Acadia National Park ........................................................................................ 13 Figure 2: Light Pollution on Mount Desert Island ........................................................................ 15 Figure 3: Illustrating lighting efficiency ....................................................................................... 17 Figure 4: Illustrating the differences between ecological and astronomical light pollution ........ 18 Figure 5: Dark Sky Project calendar ............................................................................................. 20 Figure 6: Lunar calendar of July 2013 .......................................................................................... 22 Figure 7: SQM-LU-DL ................................................................................................................. 24 Figure 8: UTM coordinate system diagram .................................................................................. 25 Figure 9: The Bortle Scale ............................................................................................................ 27 Figure 10: Comparison of Bortle Scale to mag/arcsec2 ................................................................ 28 Figure 11: Dark Sky Travel Path .................................................................................................. 29 Figure 12: Dark Sky Map With College of the Atlantic Color Scale ........................................... 30 Figure 13: Dark Sky Final Map of Mount Desert Island .............................................................. 31 Figure 14: Dark Sky Final Map of Schoodic Peninsula ............................................................... 32 Figure 15: Dark Sky Final Map With Acadia National Park Boundaries ..................................... 33 Figure 16: Sky Quality Meter lens comparison ............................................................................ 35 Figure 17: Bar Harbor ................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 18: Northeast Harbor and Southwest Harbor .................................................................... 38 Figure 19: Somesville Area .......................................................................................................... 39 Figure 20: Sand Beach .................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 21: Seawall Campground and Picnic Area ........................................................................ 41 Figure 22: Island expansion sites .................................................................................................. 42 Figure 23: Sky Quality Over Time ............................................................................................... 44 III Authorship All sections of the research paper were written and edited as a collaborative effort by all members of the team. Below are simply the names of the primary authors of each section. Primary Editor: Mario Rolon Formatting: Mario Rolon Abstract: Sarah Roth Executive Summary: Mario Rolon Chapter 1: Andrew Larsen, Joshua Morse, Mario Rolon,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Night Sky Monitoring Program for the Southeast Utah Group, 2003
    NIGHT SKY United States Department of MONITORING Interior National Park Service PROGRAM Southeast Utah Group SOUTHEAST UTAH GROUP Resource Management Division Arches National Park Canyonlands National Park Moab Hovenweep National Monument Utah 84532 Natural Bridges National Monument General Technical Report SEUG-001-2003 2003 January 2004 Charles Schelz / SEUG Biologist Angie Richman / SEUG Physical Science Technician EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NIGHT SKY MONITORING PROGRAM Southeast Utah Group Arches and Canyonlands National Parks Hovenweep and Natural Bridges National Monuments Project Funded by the National Park Service and Canyonlands Natural History Association This report lays the foundation for a Night Sky Monitoring Program in all the park units of the Southeast Utah Group (SEUG). Long-term monitoring of night sky light levels at the units of the SEUG of the National Park Service (NPS) was initiated in 2001 and has evolved steadily through 2003. The Resource Management Division of the Southeast Utah Group (SEUG) performs all night sky monitoring and is based at NPS headquarters in Moab, Utah. All protocols are established in conjunction with the NPS National Night Sky Monitoring Team. This SEUG Night Sky Monitoring Program report contains a detailed description of the methodology and results of night sky monitoring at the four park units of the SEUG. This report also proposes a three pronged resource protection approach to night sky light pollution issues in the SEUG and the surrounding region. Phase 1 is the establishment of methodologies and permanent night sky monitoring locations in each unit of the SEUG. Phase 2 will be a Light Pollution Management Plan for the park units of the SEUG.
    [Show full text]
  • AM205: Syllabus
    AM205: Data fitting for imaging Comet NEOWISE In late July 2020, Comet NEOWISE was visible from Earth. From a dark sky location, the comet was easily visible to the naked eye, and there were many superb photos that were taken showing the intricate structure of its tail. Chris has been fascinated by astronomy since an early age. His homewown of Keswick in the United Kingdom has very little light pollution, and he was able to appreciate won- ders of the night sky. However, from his current home near Central Square in Cambridge, Massachusetts there are high levels of light pollution and the sky usually appears a dim grey with all but the brightest stars washed out. On the Bortle scale that is used to measure light pollution [1], Cambridge ranks at roughly 7–8. Chris has a Fuji XT-4 digital camera, which has excellent image quality, but typical pictures of the night sky have a bright grey background. Figure1 shows a typical raw camera image, and it is difficult to make out any detail beyond the brightest stars. Further problems like aircraft lights and brightly lit clouds are also visible. As students of AM205, we can ask ourselves if it is possible to do better. The light pollution adds a smooth, but spatially varying, background to the image. Can we use our data fitting skills to subtract this out and reveal more detail? Figure 1: An example of the difficulty of night sky imaging from an urban area. This image with a 6.5 s exposure was taken near the MIT sports fields on August 11, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Gower AONB - Dark Sky Quality Survey
    Dark Sky Wales Allan Trow 28 December 2017 Gower AONB - Dark Sky Quality Survey Dark Sky Wales Training Services were commissioned in December 2017 by Swansea Council to undertake a baseline study of dark sky quality within the Gower AONB. The study was undertaken during December 2018 on clear and moonless nights. The following report highlights the findings from the study and includes recommendations for progressing Dark Sky activities in the area. !1 Introduction Light pollution through inappropriate or excessive use of artificial light makes it increasingly difficult to observe the night skies; indeed, over 90% of the UK population now lives under highly light-polluted skies. Dark skies contribute significantly to human health and wellbeing with increasing evidence showing that sleep is often disturbed by a lack of proper darkness at night with adverse impacts for health. Light pollution also impacts adversely on around 60% of wildlife, which is most active at night. In addition, sympathetic and energy-efficient lighting in communities can satisfy community needs at lower cost whilst importantly reducing carbon emissions. Dark skies are increasingly important for tourism through landscapes that offer unblemished views of the night sky. To support this aim, the AONB commissioned Dark Sky Wales in December 2017 to: • Work closely with AONB staff to identify 40 locations evenly spread across the area of interest. • Undertake study during moonless nights to ensure accurate readings are achieved without any natural influences. • Monitor weather conditions and attempt to undertake study on clear nights (some cloud cover can be worked around) • Use a minimum of two IDA1 standard SQM2 readers at each location • Take three readings from each machine to derive an average for the site.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Smartphone Astrophotography National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration A Guide to Smartphone Astrophotography National Aeronautics and Space Administration A Guide to Smartphone Astrophotography A Guide to Smartphone Astrophotography Dr. Sten Odenwald NASA Space Science Education Consortium Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, Maryland Cover designs and editing by Abbey Interrante Cover illustrations Front: Aurora (Elizabeth Macdonald), moon (Spencer Collins), star trails (Donald Noor), Orion nebula (Christian Harris), solar eclipse (Christopher Jones), Milky Way (Shun-Chia Yang), satellite streaks (Stanislav Kaniansky),sunspot (Michael Seeboerger-Weichselbaum),sun dogs (Billy Heather). Back: Milky Way (Gabriel Clark) Two front cover designs are provided with this book. To conserve toner, begin document printing with the second cover. This product is supported by NASA under cooperative agreement number NNH15ZDA004C. [1] Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 5 How to use this book ..................................................................................................................................... 9 1.0 Light Pollution ....................................................................................................................................... 12 2.0 Cameras ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE OBSERVER the Astronomy Club of Tulsa’S NewsleEr Published Since 1937
    THE OBSERVER The Astronomy Club of Tulsa’s Newsleer Published Since 1937 RON WOOD NETA APPLE JOHN LAND JACK EASTMAN BRAD YOUNG ANN BRUNN FIND AThe BIT Astronomy OF HEAVEN Club IN ofOKLAHOMA Tulsa Prepares to Mark its 75th Year in a few Months! www.astrotulsa.com All Rights Reserved Copyright 2011 Astronomy Club of Tulsa. NOVEMBER 2011 EDITORS NOTES THE COVER About This Issue: Few things will no longer appear every month. One will be Actomart as this is a great secon we just are not selling enough to keep it up every month. It will show back up as we have items our members would like to sell. The other will be The Toy Box and this does not appear every month because a cern degree of research goes into this so we don’t just list items because they are new. Speaking of new we have added one new secon this month , Beginners Challenge and we just have wait and see what response it has. I will con‐ nue to try new things and always welcome and credit suggesons. Starng next month we will be adding NASA’s Spaceplace as a feature, but more about that next month. ASTRONOMER OF THE MONTH To Submit to the Observer: This month we go about 2,700 years forward and honor Carl Sagan. This should have been a easy Email your arcle or content with pictures to jer‐ one for many of you who have read his books and [email protected] please put newsleer in seen the acclaimed Cosmos TV Mini‐Series.
    [Show full text]
  • A Model to Determine Naked-Eye Limiting Magnitude
    Volume 10 Issue 1 (2021) HS Research A Model to Determine Naked-Eye Limiting Magnitude Dasha Crocker1, Vincent Schmidt1 and Laura Schmidt1 1Bellbrook High School, Bellbrook, OH, USA ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine which variables would be needed to generate a model that predicted the naked eye limiting magnitude on a given night. After background research was conducted, it seemed most likely that wind speed, air quality, skyglow, and cloud cover would contribute to the proposed model. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining local weather data, then determining the naked eye limiting magnitude for the local conditions. This procedure was repeated for the moon cycle of October, then repeated an additional 11 times in November, December, and January. After the initial 30 trials, r values were calculated for each variable that was measured. These values revealed that wind was not at all correlated with the naked eye limiting magnitude, but pollen (a measure of air quality), skyglow, and cloud cover were. After the generation of several models using multiple regression tests, air quality also proved not to affect the naked eye limiting magnitude. It was concluded that skyglow and cloud cover would contribute to a model that predicts naked eye limiting magnitude, proving the original hypothesis to be partially correct. Introduction Humanity has been looking to the stars for thousands of years. Ancient civilizations looked to the stars hoping that they could explain the world around them. Mayans invented shadow casting devices to track the movement of the sun, moon, and planets, while Chinese astronomers discovered Ganymede, one of Jupiter’s moons (Cook, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Extraterrestrial Geology Issue
    Lite EXTRAT E RR E STRIAL GE OLO G Y ISSU E SPRING 2010 ISSUE 27 The Solar System. This illustration shows the eight planets and three of the five named dwarf planets in order of increasing distance from the Sun, although the distances between them are not to scale. The sizes of the bodies are shown relative to each other, and the colors are approximately natural. Image modified from NASA/JPL. IN TH I S ISSUE ... Extraterrestrial Geology Classroom Activity: Impact Craters • Celestial Crossword Puzzle Is There Life Beyond Earth? Meteorites in Antarctica Why Can’t I See the Milky Way? Most Wanted Mineral: Jarosite • Through the Hand Lens New Mexico’s Enchanting Geology • Short Items of Interest NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF GEOLOGY & MINERAL RESOURCES A DIVISION OF NEW MEXICO TECH EXTRAT E RR E STRIAL GE OLO G Y Douglas Bland The surface of the planet we live on was created by geologic Many factors affect the appearance, characteristics, and processes, resulting in mountains, valleys, plains, volcanoes, geology of a body in space. Size, composition, temperature, an ocean basins, and every other landform around us. Geology atmosphere (or lack of it), and proximity to other bodies are affects the climate, concentrates energy and mineral resources just a few. Through images and data gathered by telescopes, in Earth’s crust, and impacts the beautiful landscapes outside satellites orbiting Earth, and spacecraft sent into deep space, the window. The surface of Earth is constantly changing due it has become obvious that the other planets and their moons to the relentless effects of plate tectonics that move continents look very different from Earth, and there is a tremendous and create and destroy oceans.
    [Show full text]
  • Binocular Challenges
    This page intentionally left blank Cosmic Challenge Listing more than 500 sky targets, both near and far, in 187 challenges, this observing guide will test novice astronomers and advanced veterans alike. Its unique mix of Solar System and deep-sky targets will have observers hunting for the Apollo lunar landing sites, searching for satellites orbiting the outermost planets, and exploring hundreds of star clusters, nebulae, distant galaxies, and quasars. Each target object is accompanied by a rating indicating how difficult the object is to find, an in-depth visual description, an illustration showing how the object realistically looks, and a detailed finder chart to help you find each challenge quickly and effectively. The guide introduces objects often overlooked in other observing guides and features targets visible in a variety of conditions, from the inner city to the dark countryside. Challenges are provided for viewing by the naked eye, through binoculars, to the largest backyard telescopes. Philip S. Harrington is the author of eight previous books for the amateur astronomer, including Touring the Universe through Binoculars, Star Ware, and Star Watch. He is also a contributing editor for Astronomy magazine, where he has authored the magazine’s monthly “Binocular Universe” column and “Phil Harrington’s Challenge Objects,” a quarterly online column on Astronomy.com. He is an Adjunct Professor at Dowling College and Suffolk County Community College, New York, where he teaches courses in stellar and planetary astronomy. Cosmic Challenge The Ultimate Observing List for Amateurs PHILIP S. HARRINGTON CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao˜ Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521899369 C P.
    [Show full text]
  • Assisting Glacier National Park in Achieving Full International Dark Sky Park Status
    Assisting Glacier National Park in Achieving Full International Dark Sky Park Status Student Authors Project Advisors Evan Buckley Frederick Bianchi, Casey Gosselin [email protected] Sullivan Mulhern Worcester Polytechnic Institute Larson Ost Fred Looft, Bridget Wirtz [email protected] Worcester Polytechnic Institute [email protected] Project Sponsor Tara Carolin, Glacier National Park October 16, 2020 Registration Code: FB-8801 Assisting Glacier National Park in Achieving Full International Dark Sky Park Status October 16, 2020 Authors: Evan Buckley Casey Gosselin Sullivan Mulhern Larson Ost Bridget Wirtz Submitted to: Tara Carolin Glacier National Park Professors Frederick Bianchi and Fred Looft Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA This project report is submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or opinions of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. For further questions or inquiries about this project, contact the project advisors using the listed emails. Abstract The purpose of this project was to assist Glacier National Park with advancing from a provisional International Dark Sky Park (IDSP) status to a full IDSP status. To accomplish this, the park’s lighting inventory, dark sky educational programs, and night sky quality were evaluated. We determined that Glacier National Park’s sky quality has improved since becoming a provisional IDSP and we created resources to facilitate and expand the park’s dark sky educational outreach programs. Our analysis determined that the park is on track to achieve its IDSP goals by March of 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale
    observer’s log Introducing the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale Excellent? Typical? Urban? Use this nine-step scale to rate the sky conditions at any observing site. By John E. Bortle ow dark is your sky? A Limiting Magnitude Isn’t Enough precise answer to this ques- Amateur astronomers usually judge their tion is useful for comparing skies by noting the magnitude of the observing sites and, more im- faintest star visible to the naked eye. Hportant, for determining whether a site is However, naked-eye limiting magnitude dark enough to let you push your eyes, is a poor criterion. It depends too much telescope, or camera to their theoretical on a person’s visual acuity (sharpness of limits. Likewise, you need accurate crite- eyesight), as well as on the time and ef- ria for judging sky conditions when doc- fort expended to see the faintest possible umenting unusual or borderline obser- stars. One person’s “5.5-magnitude sky” vations, such as an extremely long comet is another’s “6.3-magnitude sky.” More- tail, a faint aurora, or subtle features in over, deep-sky observers need to assess the galaxies. visibility of both stellar and nonstellar ob- On Internet bulletin boards and news- jects. A modest amount of light pollution groups I see many postings from begin- degrades diffuse objects such as comets, ners (and sometimes more experienced nebulae, and galaxies far more than stars. observers) wondering how to evaluate To help observers judge the true dark- the quality of their skies. Unfortunately, ness of a site, I have created a nine-level most of today’s stargazers have never scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Constellations* - Andromeda, Aries, Auriga, Cassiopeia, Gemini, Orion, Pegasus
    Contact information: Inside this issue: Info Officer (General Info) – [email protected] Website Administrator – [email protected] Page December Club Calendar 3 Postal Address: Fort Worth Astronomical Society Celestial Events 4 c/o Matt McCullar Interesting Objects 4 5801 Trail Lake Drive Young Astronomer News 5 Fort Worth, TX 76133 Good To Know 5 Web Site: http://www.fortworthastro.org (or .com) 6 Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/3eutb22 Cloudy Night Library Twitter: http://twitter.com/ftwastro Monthly AL Observing Club 8 Yahoo! eGroup (members only): http://tinyurl.com/7qu5vkn Buzz Aldrin & FWAS Mbr Photos 9 Officers (2015-2016): TSNF Photography Contest 10 President – Bruce Cowles, [email protected] 2016 TSP Registration Notice 11 Vice President – Si Simonson, [email protected] Constellation of the Month 12 Sec/Tres – Michelle Theisen, [email protected] Constellation Mythology 13 Board Members: Monthly Sky Chart 14 2014-2016 15 Mike Langohr Monthly Planet Visibility Tree Oppermann ISS Visible Passes for DFW 15 2015-2017 Moon Phase Calendar 16 Matt Reed 1st/Last Crescent/Ephem 17 Phil Stage Conjunctions:Lunar/Planet 18 Minor Planets/Comets 19-21 Cover Photo: Mercury/Venus Data 22 The Flaming Star was captured and pro- cessed as one shot color from 3RF. It Jupiter Data 23 was taken with an Esprit 150, Canon 6D Fundraising/Donation Info 24 and an EQ8 mount. Photo by FWAS member, Jerry Gardner. General Meeting Minutes 25 That’s A Fact 26 Observing Site Reminders: Full Moon Name 26 Be careful with fire, mind all local burn bans! FWAS Fotos 27 Dark Site Usage Requirements (ALL MEMBERS): Maintain Dark-Sky Etiquette (http://tinyurl.com/75hjajy) Turn out your headlights at the gate! Edito r: Sign the logbook (in camo-painted storage shed.
    [Show full text]
  • OASI Observing Project - Winter 2014 the Constellation of Pegasus Is the 7Th Largest Constellation in the Sky Covering 1,121 Square Degrees of Sky
    Sky Condition Survey Paul Whiting, FRAS OASI Observing Project - Winter 2014 The constellation of Pegasus is the 7th largest constellation in the sky covering 1,121 square degrees of sky. During the autumn it is a dominant feature for naked eye observers. The most prominent part of the constellation is the famous "Great Square of Pegasus" which is made up of reasonably bright stars between 2nd and 3rd magnitude. The four stars that make up the square are (clockwise from NW corner): • Scheat (β Peg) - mag. 2.44 • Markab (α Peg) - mag. 2.49 • Algenib (γ Peg) - mag. 2.83 • Alpheratz (α And) - mag. 2.07 Not all of the four stars that make up the square actually are in Pegasus, the NE star and brightest of the four Alpheratz lies in neighbouring Andromeda, however it is generally accepted as being part of both constellations. 2 Scheat 2.44 Alpheratz 2.07 Markab 2.49 Algenib 2.83 3 Seeing definition Naked Eye Number of naked eye stars Seeing Limiting Magnitude visible in the square 6.5 35 Exceptional 6.25 21 Excellent 6 13 Superb 5.75 9 Very good 5.5 7 Good 5.25 5 Above Average 5 4 Average 4.75 3 Below Average 4.5 1 Poor ≤ 4.00 0 Very Poor 4 The Bortle Darkness Index The Bortle scale is a nine-level numeric scale that measures the night sky's brightness of a particular location. It quantifies the astronomical observability of celestial objects and the interference caused by light pollution. John E. Bortle created the scale and published it in the February 2001 edition of Sky & Telescope magazine to help amateur astronomers evaluate the darkness of an observing site, and secondarily, to compare the darkness of observing sites.
    [Show full text]