NOAA says no signs of 'dead zone' in Gulf

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- Scientists have found a decline in oxygen levels in the Gulf of Mexico following the BP oil spill but have found no "dead zones" as a result, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration reported Tuesday.

Levels of dissolved oxygen in deep water have dropped about 20 percent below their long-term average, according to data collected from up to 60 miles from the well at the center of the massive oil spill. But much of that dip appears to be the result of microbes using oxygen to dissolve oil underwater, and the decline is not enough to be fatal to marine life, said Steve Murawski, the head of a NOAA-led group examining the spill's impact.

"Even the lowest observations in all of these was substantially above the threshold," Murawski said.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/07/gulf.oil.environment/

[Ian David]

1. Then explain THIS...

[trotsky]

5. ZOMG

:rofl:

[glinda]

6. HAHAHAHHAHA

[pgodbold]

12. Brilliant!

[Rex]

15. If they are still doing DUzys, I nominate this post!

And folks, just in case you don't know - that is Dick Cheney and he is about to kill one of them and devour their soul!

[BumRushDaShow]

18. This HAS to get a DUzy!!!

:rofl: Touche!

[mike_c]

2. show me the data....

Quite frankly, we have reached the point where I simply don't believe statements coming from NOAA if they've been vetted by the gov't. Show me the data. I'm quite capable of interpreting it myself.

[AndyA]

3. I agree. I have a really difficult time believing that all that oil that gushed out of that well

head all those months just dissipated almost as fast as it came out. Not. Buying. It.

[anigbrowl]

7. I've got your data right here

I found it in 30 seconds. http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/JAG_Oxygen_Report%20(FINAL%20090410).pdf - and yes, that includes 13 pages of field data. In case that doesn't work (because DU doesn't parse some links properly), go to http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100907_jag3.html and click on the link for 'report'.

I guess complaining is easier than going to the NOAA website and looking up the numbers.

[mike_c]

8. thanks much-- I'll have a look at them soon....

I think you misunderstood my comment-- my point was that I don't trust the NOAA to interpret data without bias, NOT that the data are necessarily unavailable. But it is good to know that they are online. I'll have a look when I get some breathing room here (Tues-Thurs are my busiest days on campus).

I do appreciate the links!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. He didn't misunderstand your comment

you're shifting the goal posts.

[mike_c]

10. on further examination I'm not sure the data are actually there....

I believe the link you've provided is to the oxygen depletion report, not to the data themselves. There are numerous pages of tables and figures that illustrate the data, but I don't see the actual data. However, with the report I might be able to find the data on http://www.data.gov/ if it's up there.

BTW, I'm glad to see they used Winkler titrations for DO sampling rather than simply dropping an electronic probe.

[anigbrowl]

16. Per-trip data starts on page 36

that's summarized with mean and standard deviation for all the readings taken by a given ship at a given site on a given day. Individual daily data from all ships, planes, and floats is at http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/DeepwaterHorizon/oceanprofile.html - where you can have it processed or raw, with format documentation, up to the middle of last week.

I know you probably don't have time to go through it all, but it is in fact accessible to any member of the public.

[bherrera]

17. It's a common theme - they complain without looking at facts

I see many people complain about this or that without looking at facts. They don't understand the meaning of the word biodegradation, or bother to read the information available, then create a storm of criticism of the government. I suspect many of these individuals are Republicans trying to undermine the Democratic administration of President Obama, who I think has done a very good job. I don't agree with many things he does, but he is a quantum leap above the evil doer Bush.

[mike_c]

20. pardon the intrusion in this conversation...

...but I'm a professional ecologist. I can analyze data when I can find it. I'm a university prof so I also teach, and today is one of my busy days. All I've had time to do so far is skim through the report, and all I've seen thus far are data summaries, i.e. figures that omit the actual numerical values associated with each datum. A figure is not useful for independent analyses-- we need the actual data from the field, in this case Winkler titration dissolved O₂ concentrations from each water sample along with sample depth and geographic location. I simply have not had more than four or five minutes free since this thread began to find those data. If they are available, I will take a look at them and either return to this thread or start another.

While we're on the subject, it might not be possible for *me* to verify the NOAA results independently IF they've omitted crucial information about the sampling design, agency thresholds for action, etc. But I'm hoping it's possible to independently verify the NOAA report.

Skimming through it, I note that they DID find hypoxic conditions within the oil plumes, but concluded that these did not rise to the level of "dead zones." I'm also interested in what the NOAA biologists consider sufficient hypoxia to warrant the designation "dead." That is always a matter of interpretation unless it's approached from the other direction, i.e. find genuine dead zones, then determine that they're hypoxic. That's how Gulf dead zones were first recognized, and how hypoxia is usually determined to be responsible.

on edit-- as noted below, the data appear to be in appendix 5 and elsewhere online.

[anigbrowl]

24. As you're in the field...

I would be very interested in your results a week or two from now if you have the time to analyze it. I was curious myself because I have enough programming and statistics skill that I always like to find raw data and explore it, but in this case I have no domain-specific knowledge and don't really want to do a long study to build it up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. I'm an astronaut.

Here's a picture of me at our labor day picnic.

[mike_c]

31. is that a cod-piece...

...or is your pressure suit glad to see me...? :rofl:

[mike_c]

21. got it-- appendix 5....

Thanks. I hadn't scrolled down that far before I had to run off to a meeting, earlier.

[EFerrari]

14. See my #13. Dahr Jamail has been covering this topic. n/t

[DCBob]

23. Do you trust anyone?? Even if you got the raw data how do you know if its legit?

Seems to me you need to get a boat and go out there and do the sampling yourself before you will ever be satisfied.

[mike_c]

28. I assume the data are legit because they were gathered by colleagues...

...who all belong to a "culture of honesty" and would chew off their left legs before falsifying data. It's one thing to spin the interpretation-- not a professionally good thing, but I've seen it happen on more than one occasion when managerial staff priorities conflict with scientific priorities-- but it's quite another to falsify data. The former is usually met with a knowing shrug, and a "what can you do?" The latter ruins careers in this business.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

4. I hope that this is an accurate depiction.

BUT...going on past experience (like 75% of the oil has disappeared), I think that the safe thing to do is treat this statement with a large dose of show us the proof.

I just can't believe anything at face value after seeing all of the manipulation and distortion of data that we've been fed since day one.
In other words.... all of the lies that have come from BP and their puppets.

[thereismore]

9. Because no life, dead or alive, could be found? nt

[pgodbold]

11. If you believe this I have some land I'd like to sell you.

[EFerrari]

13. Fish Kills Worry Gulf Scientists, Fishers, Environmentalists

by Dahr Jamail
August 26th, 2010 | Inter Press Service

Dead fish wash up at Port Fourchon, Louisiana. Credit:Erika Blumenfeld/IPS

OCEAN SPRINGS, Mississippi - Another massive fish kill, this time in Louisiana, has alarmed scientists, fishers and environmentalists who believe they are caused by oil and dispersants.

On Aug. 22, St. Bernard Parish authorities reported a huge fish kill at the mouth of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.

“By our estimates there were thousands - and I’m talking about 5,000 to 15,000 - dead fish,” St. Bernard Parish President Craig Taffaro told reporters. “Different species were found dead, including crabs, sting rays, eel, drum, speckled trout, red fish, you name it, included in that kill.”

snip

The growing dead zone in the Gulf, which scientists believe will be the size of Massachusetts this year, is now already extremely close to shore.

“The fact that the dead zone is this close to shore is alarming to me,” Henderson said, “And we don’t know the effect the dispersants are having on the dead zones and it very well may be that they are making it worse.”

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/fish-kills-worry-gulf-scientists-fishers-environmentalists#more-1976

[wordpix]

19. this sounds like a dead zone and in fact, multiple dead zones, to me

By dead zone, I realize NOAA is referring to depleted O2 levels but I think we need to broaden the definition to include wide areas of large fish kills, don't you?

[DCBob]

25. There are dead zones every year in the Gulf due to fertilizer runoff from Mississippi river basin..

This years dead zones are huge but are mostly along the Texas coast, nowhere near the oil spill.

http://ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia

The NOAA report in the OP refers to analyses of areas near and surrounding the BP oil spill.

[DCBob]

22. Very good news.. But this is not surprising... many earlier reports indicated..

that the oil was being rapidly degraded. Of course many will still refuse to believe this... preferring to cling to doom and gloom and some far fetched conspiracy theories.

[Odin2005]

26. I have a hard time believing this.

My trust in the government not to lie is 0.

[DCBob]

27. UGA's Dr Samatha Joye is also doing alot of sampling in the Gulf now and isnt finding much either..

They have been out for two weeks and cant even find the so called "oil plume"..

"We’re mapping and have not found the core of the plume – we want to find the now ~100 day old plume that we studied in May and June. So far, we’re seeing very weak CDOM signals that are at depths consistent with those where we observed plumes 3 months ago. Finding the plume core will be a slow, methodical process, but I think we are moving in the right direction."

http://gulfblog.uga.edu/

However, they did find some oily sediments accumulated in one area..

"The sediments we collected today were similar at the bottom — gray muddy clay — but the upper few cm consisted of oil floc — we call it “oil aggregate snow”, because it settled down to the water column to the seafloor just like snow falls from the sky to the ground."