Is Mauna Loa relevant to the TMT debate?

[MarkD]

Thanks for all the good responses. (Glad to see your voice more prominent, glinda)

I believe the rate of flow is significantly dependent on relief (steepness); with a gradual relief causing flow to spread and stall. I believe 1984 flow toward Hilo did this. Other flows have almost “galloped” downhill, e.g., the flow down the giant pali above chain of craters road.

So some threatened areas might be subject only to possibly manageable 1-3 meter high flow. It seems, as in the case of the Pahoa telephone poles wrapped in protection 2 years ago, increasing efforts are being made to identify ways to survive flows.

(Of course a flow hardened in a few several weeks and then followed another flow in the same place creates a bigger problem, though if the 1st flow is higher than the surrounding land, the subsequent flow will tend to avoid it and travel to the lower area.)

* * *

Sorry to pursue a question that is premised on the extreme outcome of telescopes being removed from Mauna Kea, but where would those low altitude sites be (for telescope construction)? (TomK mentioned this.)

Waimea plain (about 3,500 ft)? Kohala Mountain (5,480 ft.)? Saddle road (6,632 ft at highest point)? (A discussion point is how higher altitude improves observational capacity, a concept often cited by astronomers. How does top of Mauna Kea compare to say 6,600 feet at Saddle Rd? Is there a percentage figure on this?)

(I presume that telescope removal might mean that they could not be built on lower Mauna Kea slopes (e.g. above Mana Road or north side of Saddle Road on the mountain’s lower slope.)

[kalakoa]

It's refreshing to see some actual discourse around a solution; it's far more constructive than the usual NIMBY "just do it somewhere else (away from my house)".

That said, has anyone asked the "protectors" whether there is any part of the island which would not be considered "sacred"? Whether or not they have any legal standing, State has made it very clear that the "protectors" are in charge of any future decisions on the issue. With "spot zoning" comes "spot protests". How can anyone make long-term plans?

Not to run off-topic, but: the NIMBYs are very strong here; look no further than the Planning transcripts -- the mere suggestion of land rezoning is often considered a "violation of trust" by those who "bought their home in a residential neighborhood". The notion that "nothing should ever be developed" is all too common, and not limited to Mauna Kea.

[MarkD]

I was wondering if some of them might weigh in with a viewpoint, Kalakoa.

Looking at the Hazard map, I see pretty much all of Saddle Road is Zone 2 danger status. So for a high elevation site, one might have to look at the slope above the road from Saddle to Waimea, though that is 1) part of Mauna Kea mountain and 2) subject to light pollution from south Kohala and Waimea.

[MarkP]

I really don't see the point in pretending that astronomers would stick around if Mauna Kea was not available. It does perhaps reflect the lack of appreciation for what's at stake in that protesters really don't grok (or care about) what the state would lose if they get their wish.

[glinda]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge

You comments seem to allow that we should consider the possibility of a once in a 1000 year event or a once in 10,000 year event. Is that what you suggested?

---

Actually HereOnThePrimalEdge I am suggesting you might benefit from taking a geology class.

[MarkD]

Good point, MarkP, let us hope that does not come about.

I gathered TomK might have been referring to alternate sites worldwide, but he mentioned “lower altitude” and I understand you folks have a very strong preference for higher altitudes, e.g., existing projects in Chile’s Atacama Desert @ about 8,000 ft., and Canary islands (under consideration) reach over 12,000 ft.

Just curious what is considered lower altitude vs high altitude (and the interesting question of say how the Chile site would compare to say 5,000 feet on Hawaii island.) (Or is 8000 feet deemed "lower altitude?")

Factors aside from light pollution include air pollution, humidity, and dust (as in from N. Africa to Canaries).

And proximity to civilization. Visiting astronomers from mainland, UK, etc. efficiently get to Hilo and up Mauna Kea in short order.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

I am suggesting you might benefit from taking a geology class.

Thank you, it's always a good suggestion, and certainly important for each of us to further our education and broaden our horizons. I've completed a geology class, but who knows, perhaps I'll brush up on the subject again in the future.

Other people following our discussion may not have studied geology or have the time to take a class however, and they might appreciate a quick reply from you to my question (rather than find the answer which I believe you implied I could discover for myself in a beneficial, one or two semester geology class):

Just as you have suggested the possibility of a Mauna Kea and Kohala eruption outside of historical evidence which suited your contention, I suggested a Mauna Loa eruption time frame slightly outside of historical evidence to indicate the rapid speed at which the lava can move.

Are we only discussing lava flows in the historical record, which would preclude your comments on Mauna Kea and Kohala, or does the discussion include geologic time which might allow for the possibility of a 6 day lava flow from Mauna Loa to Hilo? Or would you state definitively that it's impossible?

Although Mauna Kea and Kohala have not erupted in the historical time period, I'll agree they could vent lava again in the future even without reviewing notes from Geology 201. Following your line of reasoning which would then include a geologic time expanse for Mauna Loa, would you say given the unknowable, changing volume of magma under Mauna Loa, the immeasurable force with which it might erupt, and other numerous factors* beyond our present ability to calculate, that a 6 day lava flow is within a statistical possibility? Or, if you answer that it's definitively impossible, is it because you're certain a Mauna Loa lava flow is in fact from your background in geology, a known known?

* As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know. - Donald Rumsfeld

It... lends weight to Goethe's felicitous description of architecture as 'frozen music.' ... Does this, I often wonder, make music 'defrosted architecture?' Listening to Bach's Goldberg variations as I often do on walks when motorway noise and other auditory intrusions preclude the music of silence, it strikes me that it might. - Pub Walks in Underhill Country, Nat Segnit

[geochem]

MarkP: to come late to this pi$$ing match:
Prior to 1950 Mauna Loa erupted, on average, every 5 years. We are currently in the longest period of quiescence that we have a record of for Mauna Loa (a short record, admittedly).
There are recorded flow advances on the west side of Mauna Loa - from its SW rift to the ocean in ~3 hours or less.
Although most eruptions occur within the caldera and along the rift zones of Mauna Loa, there are some identified radial vents on the upper flanks of the mountain and so any structure on Mauna Loa is arguably at some risk of being impacted by a lava flow.

Mauna Kea's most recent eruption has been dated at between 4500 and 6000 years. Mauna Kea is in its post-shield stage of activity where the eruptions are not centered in the central caldera and along its rift zones but are more randomly distributed. The recurrence interval of these events is thought to be hundreds to thousands of years (but again, not a lot of data to back up since very few have been dated).

Over the years, I have heard activists claim that, in addition to Mauna Kea, the slopes of Mauna Loa, Kilauea, and Hualalai are all sacred. Frequently in response to a perceived threat of development. Hence, relocation of observatories to another mountain top would automatically make that mountain top sacred...

[Jimbo2017]

Also, Dr. Jim Juvik from UHH has climate data from Mauna Loa that shows it is wetter from clouds and fog at the summit more often than Mauna Kea. So even if it was worth the risk from an active volcano, the viewing would not be as good.

Mauka Hilo-side

[leilanidude]

Although most eruptions occur within the caldera and along the rift zones of Mauna Loa, there are some identified radial vents on the upper flanks of the mountain and so any structure on Mauna Loa is arguably at some risk of being impacted by a lava flow.
------------
The above is why the entire premise of locating any telescopes on Mauna Loa is senseless.

Putting a telescope at a lower altitude, blocks a huge portion of the sky - common sense should tell one that it is a bad idea.