UPDATE:
The press release from Goddard Space Flight Center showing sunglints suggesting they are all from the oil slick is wrong. Satellite specialist Dr. Roy Spencer writes in to show me a different MODIS/AQUA image from three days ago that shows clearly where the slick is and is not:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2010137.terra.2km
high res 1 km image here
To lend credence to Dr. Spencer’s claim, I searched and found another MODIS/AQUA image that shows a splotch of what looks exactly like what GSFC describes as the “gray-beige colored spill”, except this is all along the west coast of Florida. Clearly it is an optical effect, not an oil spill.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7.2010132.terra.2km.jpg
This suggests then that the GSFC press release has misidentified the optical effect as being the entire Gulf oil spill. The spill is there, as illustrated in the image at top, but it is not the entire “gray-beige colored” area seen in the GSFC press release image. – Anthony
============================================
UPDATE2: Skytruth has a better image which shows the extent, also taken on May 18th, but at much closer zoom level.
Envisat ASAR image, May 18, 2010. Image courtesy CSTARS.
===========================================================
There is also an overlay showing the sat image with Google Earth, that gives a better idea of scale, after the “Continue reading => ” line.
GSFC Via Eurekalert:
At 3 p.m. EDT on May 18, NASA’s Aqua satellite swept over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill from its vantage point in space and the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer instrument captured sunglints in a visible image of the spill.
The visible image showed three bright areas of sunglint within the area of the gray-beige colored spill. Sunglint is a mirror-like reflection of the sun off the water’s surface. In calm waters, the rounded image of the sun would be seen in a satellite image. However, the waves in the Gulf blurred the reflection and created an appearance of three bright areas in a line on the ocean’s surface.
According to the May 18 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) web update of the Deepwater Horizon incident, “satellite imagery on May 17 indicated that the main bulk of the oil is dozens of miles away from the Loop Current, but that a tendril of light oil has been transported down close to the Loop Current.”
The May 18 NOAA update also noted that “NOAA extended the boundaries of the closed fishing area in the Gulf into the northern portion of the loop current as a precautionary measure to ensure seafood from the Gulf will remain safe for consumers. The closed area is now slightly less than 19 percent of the Gulf of Mexico federal waters.”
====================================
Here is a Google Earth overlay view of the area shown in the photo:
Other image sizes available:
Satellite: Aqua – Pixel size: 1km – Alternate pixel size: 500m | 250m
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I always wonder what would happen if an accident occurs from China’s drilling in the area of the Gulf. How responsive and quick to act would they be. I hope such an even never occurs, but accidents do happen. Interesting thought for us to ponder.
So I’m not quite sure what I’m looking at…
Is the entire grayish area along the coast at the top of the picture supposed to be part of the oil sheen? Or are we only supposed to be looking at the shiny parts?
Or is that just oil sheen while the shiny part is actually thicker oil?
Disgusting. This is the “true cost” of the oil we depend on. We just have been fortunate enough to been shielded from it for so long. But we’re finally paying the price. This is a disaster of epic proportions, and it’s plain as day in that photograph.
Nice pics. Looks like another negative feedback. Should make all the alarmists happy.
Thanks for your diligence in checking and the great information that you are passing on!!
It is some form of heiligenschein.
This catastrophe is virtually inexcusable. 11 lives, dozens of injured, hideous environmental impact. Poor management, poor engineering, poor planning, and yes, poor government oversight. No contingency planning, no spill containment models, no well-capping technology (just one Rube Goldberg device after another so far). The oil on the Gulf waters may have only one tiny benefit. Wave propagation during a hurricane will be reduced as “oil on troubled waters” does actually reduce wave heights.
Looks as though the most significant ecological damage from this spill will be the result of the throngs of media trampling the delicate grasses along the barrier islands in the Gulf.
The large and uniform areas are sun glint from the normal sea surface, as can be seen off the coast of Florida in the second image.
One the first image, there is a thin structure superimposed upon the standard sun glint area, which is caused by the oil slick.
Wave patterns and other optical effects will influnce sun glint from the surface of the ocean, but with a little thought, can easily be identified.
My team is currently using multi-spectral cameras on aircraft along the Louisiana coastline and they were surprized how difficult it was to identify the oil. For someone that had done this before during the first gulf war, I understood why they were having so much trouble. Subtle changes in sea surface temperature in the thermal IR bands or using sun glints are the best methods for detecting oil contamination regions.
However, with both methods, you must understand what the normal sea surface looks like and identify the regions that are different.
I wonder if the oil sheen will have any effect on evaporation?
Will the dark oil cause the Gulf to absorb more sunlight and warm?
Could it weaken or strengthen a Hurricane?
We may salvage an unintended experiment out of this disaster.
Of course the pictures say a lot. The pics are too far away to even show a single 1,000 foot tanker or 400 foot drilling platform.
If this had not been man made the same would have happened any way from natural causes! Yes the greatest environmental damage will be from the people trying to stop environmental damage as the cure in this case will be worse than the ill!
hswiseman says:
May 20, 2010 at 10:16 am
… hideous environmental impact.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jsHOIV3zNSlEI7jaCN2uslI0cjTwD9FPHIKO4
“David Krebs, who owns a local seafood market, said the town is tired and frustrated by the continued restrictions and lack of information about the spill.
Local fishermen are catching plenty of fish in non-restricted areas closer to shore, the weather is great, the fish are healthy and the beaches are oil-free, Krebs said.
The perception that oil has already hit and seafood is unsafe has devastated the tourist-driven economy, he said.
“This is just more fear factor and hype,” he said, “but if people are afraid to come on vacation here now and there was already this big wonderment about the economy anyway then the perception is everything.”
Analysts said it doesn’t appear the new restriction will hurt most U.S. seafood chains and retailers.”
Observations of Benjamin Franklin
On November 7, 1773 Franklin wrote a letter to one Doctor Brownrigg. Extracts of that letter are given below.
“…I had, when a youth, read and smiled at PLINY’S account of a practice among the seamen of his time, to still the waves in a storm by pouring oil into the sea; which he mentions, as well as the use made of the oil by the divers…
“In 1757, being at sea in a fleet of 96 sail bound against Louisbourg, I observed the wakes of two of the ships to be remarkably smooth, while all the others were ruffled by the wind, which blew fresh. Being puzzled with the differing appearance, I at last pointed it out to our captain, and asked him the meaning of it? ‘The cooks, says he, have, I suppose, been just emptying their greasy water through the scuppers, which has greased the sides of those ships a little;’ and this answer he gave me with an air of some little contempt, as to a person ignorant of what every body else knew. In my own mind I at first slighted his solution, tho’ I was not able to think of another. But recollecting what I had formerly read in PLINY, I resolved to make some experiment of the effect of oil on water, when I should have opportunity.
“Afterwards being again at sea in 1762, I first observed the wonderful quietness of oil on agitated water, in the swinging glass lamp I made to hang up in the cabin, as described in my printed papers, page 438 of the fourth edition. – This I was continually looking at and considering, as an appearance to me inexplicable. An old sea captain, then a passenger with me, thought little of it, supposing it an effect of the same kind with that of oil put on water to smooth it, which he said was a practice of the BERMUDIANS when they would strike fish, which they could not see, if the surface of the water was ruffled by the wind. This practice I had never before heard of, and was obliged to him for the information; tho’ I thought him mistaken as to the sameness of the experiment, the operations being different; as well as the effects. In one case, the water is smooth till the oil is put on, and then become agitated. In the other it is agitated before the oil is applied, and then becomes smooth. – The same gentleman told me, he had heard it was a practice with the fishermen of LISBON when about to return into the river, (if they saw before them too great a surf upon the bar, which they apprehended might fill their boats in passing) to empty a bottle or two of oil into the sea, which would suppress the breakers, and allow them to pass safely: a confirmation of this I have not since had an opportunity of obtaining. But discoursing of it with another person, who had often been in the Mediterranean, I was informed that the divers there, who, when under water in their business, need light, which the curling of the surface interrupts by the refractions of so many little waves, let a small quantity of oil now and then out of their mouths, which rising to the surface smooths it, and permits the light to come down to them. – All these informations I at times revolved in my mind, and wondered to find no mention of them in our books of experimental philosophy.
“At length being at CLAPHAM where there is, on the common, a large pond, which I observed to be one day very rough with the wind, I fetched out a cruet of oil, and dropt a little of it on the water. I saw it spread itself with surprising swiftness upon the surface; but the effect of smoothing the waves was not produced; for I had applied it first on the leeward side of the pond, where the waves were the largest, and the wind drove my oil back upon the shore. I then went to the windward side, where they began to form; and there the oil, though not more than a teaspoonful, produced an instant calm over a space several yards square, which spread amazingly, and extending itself gradually till it reached the lee side, making all that quarter of the pond, perhaps half an acre, as smooth as a looking-glass.
“After this, I contrived to take with me, whenever I went into the country, a little oil in the upper hollow joint of my bamboo cane, with which I might repeat the experiment as opportunity should offer; and I found it constantly to succeed.”
It should be mentioned that Franklin did not identify the type of oil used in his experiments. Not all oils would have worked. It is now known that those oils that have a polar group in its molecular structure (for example, a carboxyl group, COOH) would spread on the surface of water, with the nonpolar part of the molecule sticking out of the water. Long chain aliphatic molecules spread this way, whereas polymers form films where the molecules lie flat on the water surface. In all likelihood Franklin used olive oil in his experiments. Tanford said, on page 76 of his book:
“Note on the word ‘oil.’ In Franklin’s time the word ‘oil,’ without qualifying prefix, would have referred to oil used in the household, generally olive oil or sometimes fish oil or whale oil. Mineral oil (petroleum oil) had been known since antiquity, but saw little practical use until the nineteenth century. The distinction is important, because petroleum oil is pure hydrocarbon oil, and, …, would not have produced the effects that Franklin observed.”
Franklin went on to say:
“A gentleman from Rhode-island told me, it had been remarked that the harbour of Newport was ever smooth while any whaling vessels were in it; which probably arose from hence, that the blubber which they sometimes bring loose in the hold, or the leakage of their barrels, might afford some oil, to mix with that water, which from time to time they pump out to keep the vessel free, and that same oil might spread over the surface of the water in the harbour, and prevent the forming of any waves.”
When people have no idea of scale, they are easly misled.
From the link: “The oil slick appeared as a tangle of dull gray on the ocean surface, made visible to the satellite sensor by the sun’s reflection on the ocean surface.”
…You can actually see the oil slick (at the link below) and a more accurate explanation of the suns reflection on the ocean, used to aid the satellite in ‘seeing’ the oil slick.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/photo/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-satellite-images.html
I think an oil rig being blown to pieces and leaking 5000 + litres a day is a disaster whatever the satellite images show.
I don’t think alarmist reporting is new, especially when it comes to any topic involving politics or environment. I usually divide media estimates of something like this by 10.
Those who take any news of this spill as gospel need to know that they will be either disappointed or relieved, depending on their own political or environmental bias, when the final report is written.
I suppose my approach is a reflection of my own skepticism, but while it is sometimes wrong, it works more often than not.
When people talk epic disasters, they should review the history of the 1979 Mexico’s Ixtoc #1 well that blew out in the Gulf, took nine months to control, and spilled an estimated 140 million gallons. The biggest single accidental oil spill ever.
It is fascinating to watch the leftists and alarmists try and make the situation worse than it really is. And yes I live on the Gulf coast. We just had two officials of FL State wildlife say the problem is nowhere near as bad as the media is saying it is… They came on the local radio at the top of the last hour. They say most of the oil will evaporate.
BTW, we have oil blobs float up on the coast all the time, mostly from ships. And yes it happens in the Keys just to the south of us as well. Not trying to minimize things, just add some sanity.
We had massive unprecedented fish deaths, Manatee deaths and coral die-off this past winter, due to the cold.
Cotwom:
That was an excellent link and thanks for sharing it with us.
The best method by far is by using thermal inertia. Subtract a thermal IR image taken two hours after sunset from a thermal IR image taken two hours prior. The difference in the images is a function of the thermal inertia of the surface. Different surfaces will loose or retain heat based upon their thermal properties. Oil slicks will stick out like a sore thumb using this method.
This blogger suggests that the albedo of the slick is higher, which reduces local temperatures. That should indicate that hurricane strength would be weakened. My guess is a marginal weakening, though, on albedo alone.
But, heat transfer from reduced evaporation may also work to reduce hurricane strength.
Anthony, this is your forte. Any ideas?
REPLY: It’s a slippery topic. – A
oops. the blogger….
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=230458
Les Johnson:
This is not so much temperature, but the change in emissivity of the sea surface as measured by satellite. But as was noted in the link which you provided, satellites did detect a small change in sea surface temperature.
In the early days of Climate Audit there was a commenter who’s pet theory was that the cooling in the 40’s was due to all the oil spilled as a result of submarine war. Wonder if we will hear from him again.
bill-tb
Your “all-the-time” blobs are more than likely from natural seeps, not ships. Geologists estimate the Gulf natural petro seepage is at least a million gallons/year. The gulf ecosystem has evolved for eons with this all-natural, all-organic, mineral supplement. Regardless of the eco-wacko hype, seepage, even this heavy dose of “light, sweet crude,” is not a toxic contact poison.
It will break down to nutrients for flora and fauna. Volitiles will evaporate. Heaver components will settle into sand and mud flats, stablizing them against wind and water driven erosion.
Life is not all bad, unless you seriously look for it