Source here. Mind the caveat though:
The Japanese government estimated that the tsunami generated 25 million tons of rubble, but there is no clear understanding of exactly how much debris was swept into the water nor what remained afloat.
Tracking Marine Debris from the Japanese Tsunami
Debris scatters in the Pacific Ocean, possibly heading to U.S.
Debris from the tsunami that devastated Japan in March could reach the United States as early as this winter, according to predictions by NOAA scientists. However, they warn there is still a large amount of uncertainty over exactly what is still floating, where it’s located, where it will go, and when it will arrive. Responders now have a challenging, if not impossible situation on their hands: How do you deal with debris that could now impact U.S. shores, but is difficult to find?
Federal Agencies Join Forces
To learn more about the tsunami debris, NOAA researchers have been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other partners to coordinate data collection activities.
NOAA and its partners are also coordinating an interagency assessment and response plan to address the wide-range of potential scenarios and threats posed by the debris.
“We’re preparing for the best and worst case scenarios — and everything in between,” says Nancy Wallace, director for NOAA’s Marine Debris Program.
As the tsunami surge receded, it washed much of what was in the coastal inundation zone into the ocean. Boats, pieces of smashed buildings, appliances, and plastic, metal, and rubber objects of all shapes and sizes washed into the water — either sinking near the shore or floating out to sea. The refuse formed large debris fields captured by satellite imagery and aerial photos of the coastal waters.
The Japanese government estimated that the tsunami generated 25 million tons of rubble, but there is no clear understanding of exactly how much debris was swept into the water nor what remained afloat.
What remains of the debris?
Nine months later, debris fields are no longer visible. Winds and ocean currents scattered items in the massive North Pacific Ocean to the point where debris is no longer visible from satellite. Vessels regularly traveling the North Pacific have reported very few sightings. Only two pieces have been clearly linked to the tsunami.
NOAA is coordinating new interagency reporting and monitoring efforts that will provide critical information on the location of the marine debris generated by the tsunami. Ships can now report significant at-sea debris sightings and individuals or groups can request shoreline monitoring guides at DisasterDebris@noaa.gov.
Where is it?
Computer models run by NOAA and University of Hawaii researchers show some debris could pass near or wash ashore in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (in the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument) as early as this winter, approach the West Coast of the United States and Canada in 2013, and circle back to the main Hawaiian Islands in 2014 through 2016.
Researchers caution that models are only predictions based on location of debris when it went into the water, combined with historical ocean currents and wind speeds.
Conditions in the ocean constantly change, and items can sink, break down, and disperse across a huge area. Because it is not known what remains in the water column nor where, scientists can’t determine with certainty if any debris will wash ashore.
Worst- and Best-case Scenarios
The worst-case scenario is boats and unmanageable concentrations of other heavy objects could wash ashore in sensitive areas, damage coral reefs, or interfere with navigation in Hawaii and along the U.S. West Coast. Best case? The debris will break up, disperse and eventually degrade, sparing coastal areas.
Debris will not go away completely, even in a best-case scenario. Marine debris is an ongoing problem for Hawaii and West Coast states, where garbage and other harmful items regularly wash up on beaches, reefs and other coastal areas.
What Else is NOAA Doing?
NOAA has convened experts to review available data and information from models and provide their perspectives on debris fate and transport. They are gathering information on significant sighting of marine debris in the North Pacific through NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operation’s Pacific fleet, the NOAA Voluntary Observing Ship Program, which includes industry long-haul transport vessels, as well as the NOAA Pacific Island Regional Observer Program and their work with the Hawaii longline fishing industry. NOAA is also working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Hawaii on shoreline debris monitoring in the Papahānaumokuākea Monument.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I really wonder whether all this debris tracking and models are any cheaper than simple waiting for when something appears ashore and cleaning it up.
From NOAA “The worst-case scenario is boats and unmanageable concentrations of other heavy objects could wash ashore in sensitive areas, damage coral reefs, or interfere with navigation in Hawaii and along the U.S. West Coast. Best case? The debris will break up, disperse and eventually degrade, sparing coastal areas.”
What NOAA doesn’t want to discuss is our practice of removing all large woody debris from our surface waters has had massive negative impacts on both salmon production. So wood slamming into coral is bad but removing wood that salmon need is good. One day I’ll figure out the logic.
Man, I can’t tell you what dreck I think this whole exercise is. The freakin’ EPA has a joint project with NOAA and Fish and Wildlife to track a trivial amount of garbage on the other side of the Pacific??
I loved this part:
Two pieces?
In any case, back to the science, back-of-envelope variety. They estimate 25 million tonnes of rubble. From the photos of the huge walls of rubble, and the fact that much of it was pushed way inshore, or simply smashed where it stood, I’ll estimate that only about one part in 25 was swept to sea, perhaps a million tonnes.
Now, out of that million tonnes, some unknown amount will become waterlogged and sink in a short time. In addition, some other unknown amount will be broken apart by the ceaseless action of wind, wave, and sun.
Finally, much of what remains after the ocean has done its best will be … wood. The Japanese build a lot with wood, and it would have made up a large amount of what went into the ocean with the tsunami in the first place. Concrete doesn’t get swept out to sea, but wood does.
So let’s say that now, nine months down the line, we probably have half a million tonnes or so of the Japanese debris in the Pacific, most of which is wood.
The area of the Pacific if about 160 million square km. (60 million square miles) The debris field might encompass half the North Pacific, call it 40 million square km (15 million sq. miles). Half a million tonnes in 40 million square km, that’s half a tonne of debris spread out over every 40 square km, or about 12 kg of debris per square km.
That’s not a whole lot. Even if we double our estimate to be on the conservative side, that’s a few sticks of wood from some poor Japanese guy’s ex-house per square kilometre … you’ll excuse me if I don’t see the logic of putting together a team of razor-sharp EPA bureaucrats to track that.
Finally, even if we could track every last pathetic fragment of a Japanese coat and every last smashed splinter of Japanese wood … so what? I mean, it’s not like we able going to do anything about it even if we wanted to.
I have previously written that I thought the EPA should be reformed and not abolished. History has shown that we need something like it to keep us from dumping bad chemicals in the drinking water. But the current EPA is way off the reservation, tracking Japanese rubbish across the wide Pacific. It needs radical surgery, cut its budget by a factor of 10, set it to re-examining the environmental laws from a scientific viewpoint.
w.
I don’t understand why they just don’t let the climate modelers handle this. After all, these guys specialize in handling garbage.
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75
;fudge factor
;insert garbage here
Willis Eschenbach says:
” But the current EPA is way off the reservation, tracking Japanese rubbish across the wide Pacific.”
Absolutely no argument there. What is interesting to watch is as EPA tries to expand its reach the interagency battles that develop. NOAA and EPA seem to be circling one another on a few issues and the big one is the fuse burning between EPA and USDA. I had to chuckle at this:
“To learn more about the tsunami debris, NOAA researchers have been working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other partners to coordinate data collection activities” If experience is any guide-I’m sure there is a flat out turf war going on between these agencies over this issue.
And as someone that would run a boat for hours looking for any piece of wood or floating trash in search of dolphin/mahi–mahi– give me the coordinates!
Ask yourselves what all those federal workers might be doing if they were NOT engaged in the “debris study”. Having them occupied “off shore” might actually save us lots of money and grief “on shore” where they might be working, for example, on sending your indoor toilet the way of the incandescent light bulb.
You got that right. Funnily enough, it works that way in the Atlantic too. Many’s the time we’d run to the Gulf Stream. Just as you approach there would normally be a tide line where debris had gathered. Put out your lures and troll along the debris fields and watch the rods go down.
just another way of the Bur O Crats seeking funding for useless activities………
I live on vancouver island and the debris is washing up on shores right now, and as some have commented, most is plastic containers and processed lumber that is marked with japanese writing linking it back to these areas hit by the tsunami. Funny thing about the lumber, is it originated from here as raw logs and has made its way back home, there’s a metaphor in there somewhere!
Also a friend I know has a bud who owns a large commercial fishing boat and has been fallowing the story for the idea of savage. Rumour has it a few weeks ago picked up a large sail boat, sadly it did contain a couple of victim from the Japan disaster.
If they knew where it was, why didn’t they clean it up before it sank?
“The worst-case scenario is boats and unmanageable concentrations of other heavy objects could wash ashore in sensitive areas, damage coral reefs”
###
I think they mean “providing substrate for coral to build on”.
Claude Harvey says:
December 29, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Ask yourselves what all those federal workers might be doing if they were NOT engaged in the “debris study”. Having them occupied “off shore” might actually save us lots of money and grief “on shore” where they might be working, for example, on sending your indoor toilet the way of the incandescent light bulb.
__________________________________
I was inclined to agree with you but on second thought, we have no assurance that they won’t still cost us money and grief just because they are working on an offshore project.
Initially, the EPA did more good than harm, but that time has past into history and all we have now is a bunch of bureaucrats with an agenda.
Could be some gruesome surprises.
NOAA’s models predicted that the oil from the BP oil spill could reach North Carolina and then cross the Atlantic. So much for that.
If the EPA finds some wood out there in the Pacific Ocean, what to do? Count tree-rings?
“could now impact U.S. shores”
Impact? The debris is going to crash into the shore with an almighty bang?
I know “impact” is replacing “affect” (though I don’t know why) but “affect” doesn’t really fit here, either.
“Debris from the tsunami that devastated Japan in March could reach the United States as early as this winter, according to predictions by NOAA scientists. However, they warn there is still a large amount of uncertainty over exactly what is still floating, where it’s located, where it will go, and when it will arrive.”
=======
Well that narrows it down, thanks for the flash.
Is there anything you do know ?
Reminds me of our knowledge of satellite orbital decay rates.
Pat Moffitt
December 29, 2011 at 11:35 am
What NOAA doesn’t want to discuss is our practice of removing all large woody debris from our surface waters has had massive negative impacts on both salmon production. So wood slamming into coral is bad but removing wood that salmon need is good. One day I’ll figure out the logic.
###
Are you a salmonid ichthyologist? You sure sound like one. You have mentioned this issue with large woody debris several times. I have a keen interest in fresh water ecology, but don’t know much about salmonids. Because I now live in the northwest, I have become interested. I would like to find out more, but as I now make my living as a software engineer in the high-tech industry, I don’t have the 100s of hours to sift through all the garbage to find reliable information. In some ecosystems, woody debris provides important habitat for food organisms required for some fishes. Is this the case here?
BTW, the logic is simple. If the policy can be used to support the agenda, then it is used. Doing anything that actually solves the problem is bad because it eliminates an issue that is needed to drive the agenda. Another one of my interest is carnivore biology. Its pretty apparent that the environmentalist have absolutely no interest in actually protecting the carnivores that they claim to care so much about.
Desert Yote,
If the moderator would be so kind to pass along my email to you I would be more than happy to send you some info so as not to hijack this thread.
[Moderator’s Note: Done. -REP]
Desert Yote,
To your point on agendas- one wonders why this from the1999 National Academies report _”Sustaining Marine Fisheries” never made the Press:
“….a variety of political agendas and potential conflicts of interest complicate fishery management… The pressure for liberal catch quotas can be quite strong-often involving important political figures-and risk prone management often results. Even if mangers resist pressures to make risk prone decisions, the existence of a large, chronically undersatisfied fleet exacerbates monitoring, control and surveillance.” (Its not the only time the report talks about important political figures and conflicts of interest and they are basically admitting they have no control over whats really being harvested)
This report asks a critical question that goes way beyond fisheries:
“How should fishers and other individuals who gain economic benefits from natural resources be involved in management processes? A risk of participatory democracy in fishery management that must be avoided is the potential for the process to be captured by narrow interests.”
It is bad beyond comprehension and controlled by a narrative that bears no resemblance to either the science or reality. And unfortunately its not just fisheries. There is simply no incentive to fix anything- quite the contrary it is the maintenance of the problem that feeds the special interests, regulatory budgets, academic grants and NGO donations. We could probably solve half our environmental problems by spending less money (cutting off perverse subsidies in everything from fisheries, agriculture, grants and water) rather than more. The Disease is simply more valuable than the cure.
Don’t look at this as a conspiracy because its not-its simply a complex system following perverse incentives- one in which the diffuse Public interest is rarely served and environmental quality never.
Another coup for “Junk Science”! That’s the Science of Junk, not Junk Climate Science, of course.
Interesting thing about debris, you never know where it will turn up.
Friend of mine is from a Native band up on the Northwest coast. He told a story of when he was a kid, a freighter carrying clothes hit an island just off the coast near his village. Over the coming weeks, plenty of new clothes and shoes washed up. While a little waterlogged, they were still no worse for the wear! All anybody had to do to get some new threads simply had to comb the beaches. Heck of a lot cheaper then paying a hundred bucks for new shoes.
“NOAA and its partners”??
Excuse me, NOAA, who gave YOU the authority to claim that you are a business and that you have “partners”?
This is an offensive remark from a publicly-funded organization.
Only private companies have “partners”.
It should, at minimum, read: “NOAA and its other taxpayer-funded scientific organizations working for the benefit of the taxpayer.”
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Obviously there are a lot of people without enough to do.
What possible difference could any of this make to anyone?
Jack S.;
It’s Beachcomber Bonanza time!