What the University of Georgia report on the Gulf oil spill really said...

[jpak]

They fault the media for misrepresenting the Federal Science Report (FSR) on the spill - it never said that "75% disappeared"...

The ad hoc UGA spill group concluded that "the media interpretation of the (FSR) has been largely inaccurate and misleading"

Using the FSR data - and excluding the amount of oil recovered at the wellhead - most of the oil remains in the Gulf of Mexico.

This is what the FSR stated.

They also concluded that, as oil continues to degrade, the threat to the East Coast by oil entrained into the Loop Current and subsequently into the Gulf Stream, declines "day by day".

They did not contradict the FSR - it was a vindication of the FSR

yup

pdf here

http://oilspill.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/Georgia-Sea-Grant-Oil-Spill-Report-20100816.pdf

The UGA folks were not only ones to question media coverage of the FSR...this is an op ed from the journal Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/329/5993/734

Gulf Oil Spill: A Lot of Oil on the Loose, Not So Much to Be Found

Richard A. Kerr

Now that the gusher that spewed oil for 85 days into the Gulf of Mexico has stopped, scientists are wondering where it all went. A federal report released last week should have begun to answer that question. Instead, political spin and media hype transformed the scientists' message even before it was released. According to one CNN reporter, the interagency report led by the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that of the 4.9 million barrels of oil spilled, "75% has been cleaned up by Man or Mother Nature." Nothing in the report supports that interpretation. But there are multiple ways to read the report's iconic pie chart while remaining grounded in fact.

<end>

Do not believe what the media says about these reports - govenment and non-government scientists agree on "where the oil went".

It's still there

yup

[Subdivisions]

1. Didn't you make virtually the same post yesterday? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. It's worth repeating.

Given that so many nuts are ignoring the truth.

[jpak]

4. yup n/t

n/t

[jpak]

3. yes - but the UGA pdf was not available

and I was right

yup

[BeFree]

5. Heh

"But there are multiple ways to read the report's iconic pie chart while remaining grounded in fact."

And then on TV last night was Lubchenko saying that only 25% of the oil is still there.

There is a swirl of propaganda around this problem.

BP, last I heard, claimed there never was a plume. What does BP claim today? Can you answer that? Can anyone?

[jpak]

6. Distilling complex science into public-friendly sound bites doesn't work in a science illiterate

society.

and Lubchenko is correct - the large masses of emulsified oil ("mousse") on the ocean surface have largely dissipated and the threat of a massive "Black Tides" of oil on the shores of the Gulf has greatly diminished.

This does not mean there is no on-going threat to ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico - Lubchenko has repeated this again and again.

Government scientists never claimed that there are no subsurface oil plumes - BP officials have, however...

BP spokespersons are not government scientists.

contrary to what many now believe...

[BeFree]

7. So

The government has come out and said that there were massive plumes of oil?

You seem to be professing that you do know the science, so what about the plumes?

[jpak]

9. Obama administration stated repeatedly that this spill was a major environmental disaster

NASA and NOAA posted numerous satellite and aerial photos of the extent of the spill - it was there for all to see.

From space, the spill was clearly massive - before the various recovery schemes reduced the amount of oil released from the wellhead.

Natural weathering processes rapidly degraded those huge slicks of thick surface oil.

As the government and UGA reports stated - some of the oil dissolved in the water column, some evaporated, some was transformed from large aggregations into weathered tarballs and micron-sized droplets ("dispersed oil").

Those processes degraded the large surface slicks of mousse, and after the wellhead was capped, and no more oil entered the Gulf, the threat of large masses of highly toxic un-weathered oil diminished.

That is what NOAA was trying to explain the the American people.

What we got from the media was anti-Obama propaganda.

yup

[BeFree]

10. So

I read your words in that reply and not once was there mention of a 'plume'.

Your propaganda is failing. One wonders why you can't answer a simple question....

[jpak]

13. NOAA scientists confirmed the presence of large subsurface oil plumes in July

do people even bother to read the news anymore?

[BeFree]

14. Cool

You really do know a bit.

In July, NOAA finally fessed up. Only after going after the scientists, who, in the end, won.

So where are the plumes now? Did they magically disperse?

[jpak]

17. NOAA has to get the science right before it can confirm any observation

Goverment scientsts undergo more rigorous internal and external peer-review of their data than university scientists.

This takes time.

Getting it right the first time counts - there is no alternative to this.

[BeFree]

19. I agree

So, why is NOAA being so gawd damned confusing, today?

[jpak]

22. The media is misrepresenting what it had to say - that is what the UGA report is all about

read the pdf in the OP - it's pretty damning of the media's coverage.

and the media is misrepresenting what the UGA scientists said.

yup

[jpak]

20. The plumes are still there but no one knows their extent or dispersal patterns

It will take a lot of effort to map the plumes and even more effort to track and model their future movements.

FYI - the dispersed oil droplets are the plumes.

[BeFree]

23. No one knows the extent of the plumes?

Oh, they have a good idea. See, they placed floaters at several levels in the water, in the plumes, and they had maps up, but all those maps have been scrubbed off the web.

NOAA is not only now being confusing, but they have obfuscated the whole way.

Don't even try to deny that if you want a shred of credibility, would be my advice.

[jpak]

26. Since you have obviously not bothered to read the UGA report - I will transcribe it 4 U

This is what they said about the plumes.

"There have been no oceanographic surveys measuring the entire breadth of the subsurface oil plumes, only cruises targeting specific regions of interest to the scientific community"

That was the state of the science as of yesterday.

Furthermore, drifters cannot track the plumes with 100% certainty, they can only track where the drifters go. That data has to be confirmed by CTD casts - and that will take a lot of time and effort.

[BeFree]

34. yeah

And the more time they take the more dispersed the plumes will be.

Good tactic on NOAA's part. Bad for the rest of us.

When NOAA denied the plumes way back then, they denied the proper science efforts from the scientists who wanted to do the studies, and who eventually were proven correct about the plumes back in MAY.

If you think that all available science was pushed to the forefront from day one, you are sadly mistaken. Surely you are not suggesting that?

[jpak]

44. Your accusations are baseless - NOAA and other federal agencies are not dragging their feet

NOAA has redeployed many of it own research vessels and devoted lots of ship time to this spill - and they are still at it.

Lots of UNOLS vessels have been diverted to the Gulf as well.

The level of at-sea research effort has been unprecedented

and like I said before - NOAA has to get the science right the first time.

This takes time and effort.

There is no instant gratification - or conspiracy

tinfoil fail

yup

[LTX]

30. No, they haven't been "scrubbed off the web."

http://www.marine.usf.edu/oilspill/

[jpak]

31. thank you

n/t

[BeFree]

36. well,

You can call me a liar. But I saw it with my own eyes what was being displayed was scrubbed.

[jpak]

39. what website? NOAA changes its webpage to accomodate new reports - it's probablly archived

not scubbed

[BeFree]

43. USF site and a Miami.edu sites were both scrubbed

NOAA was junk the whole time.

It took them two months to admit to the plumes!!!

[jpak]

45. tinfoil fail

the end

[BeFree]

46. yes, you have failed, miserably

[jpak]

49. LOL!!!111

:rofl:

I win

:D

[jpak]

51. It only took a few mouse clicks to get to the USF website to download this...

http://ocg6.marine.usf.edu/~liu/oil_spill_ensemble_forecast.html

and this...

http://ocg6.marine.usf.edu/~liu/oil.html

and this...

Bob Weisberg, Yonggang Liu, and Lianyuan Zheng in collaboration with Chuanmin Hu are providing oil spill trajectory forecasts both at the surface and subsurface using a variety of models and observations. Visit the Ocean Circulation Group webpage at the link above to view the trajectory forecasts.

http://ocgweb.marine.usf.edu/

and this...

WFS hindcast subsurface oil slick trajectories

WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 50m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 100m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 200m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 400m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 600m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 800m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 1000m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 1200m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


WFSFCS hindcast subsurface trajectories for Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill based on drifters released at 1400m under the surface on 4/20/2010.


again - tinfoil fail

:rofl:

[LTX]

54. Oh for crying out loud.

It's obvious that you desperately want an evil conspiracy and nefarious government censorship to rant about. But unfortunately (I guess) scientists, government and otherwise, aren't cooperating:

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/53979/

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=809#downloads See, e.g.,

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/1926_TrajectoryFieldGuide.pdf

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/2056_NOAATrajectoryMaps.pdf

http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/book_shelf/2418_loopcurrent-2010-08-17.pdf

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/noaa_weatherbird_analysis_final2.pdf

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100608_weatherbird.html

http://ocgweb.marine.usf.edu/models.html See, e.g.,

http://ocg6.marine.usf.edu/~liu/oil_spill_ensemble_forecast.html

http://ocgweb.marine.usf.edu/~liu/Drifters/latest_rtofs.htm

http://gohsep.la.gov/oilspill.aspx

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/default.htm

http://www.arcgis.com/home/group.html?owner=ESRI_response_team&title=ESRI%20Gulf%20Oil%20Spill%20Response

http://news.sciencemag.org/oilspill/

[jpak]

15. Scientists Confirm Underwater Plumes Are From Spill

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/science/earth/24plume.html

Florida researchers said Friday that they had for the first time conclusively linked vast plumes of microscopic oil droplets drifting in the Gulf of Mexico to the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Multimedia

The scientists, from the University of South Florida, matched samples taken from the plumes with oil from the leaking well provided by BP. The findings were the first direct confirmation that the plumes were linked to the spill, although federal scientists had said there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence tying them to BP’s well.

The discovery of the plumes several weeks into the oil leak alarmed scientists, who feared that clouds of oil particles could wreak havoc on marine life far below the surface. Plumes have been detected as far as 50 miles from the wellhead, although oil concentrations at those distances are extremely low, about 750 parts per billion.

<snip>

The plumes closest to the well may be concentrated enough to pose a threat to nearby deepwater coral reefs, which host a diversity of ocean life, said Steve Murawski, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s chief scientist for the spill response. “We know that even low concentrations can be harmful to the eggs and larvae of the deep coral,” he said.

<more>

google is not your friend

[BeFree]

18. Hey

We all know you are the expert....

So why get your panties in a twist when asked questions?

Maybe you really are not an expert?

********

The plumes were first reported around the end of May. It took all of June and most of July before the experts at NOAA finally saw the science?

Damn, that is ugly. Guess no one told Obama, eh?

[jpak]

21. I get bent out of shape when I see thread after thread of anti-Obama nonsense about this spill

Obama has done his job - very very well

Obama did not cause this spill

There is no cover up

The government is not lying to us

yup

[janx]

12. BP's public relations arm is massive.

Many people attribute things to the government that are really propagated by BP, and BP likes it that way. And it's much easier to do when a society is scientifically ignorant, as you point out.

[Subdivisions]

8. NOAA's Lubchenko in her own words for the Aug 4 WH/NOAA presser:

"Today the federal government is releasing a new scientific that addresses the question: Where did the oil go?

"This analysis uses the recently released calculation of 4.9 million barrels, plus or minus 10%, and includes both direct measurements as well as the best estimates where direct measurements were not possible."

"The report was produced by scientific experts from a number of different agencies, federal agencies, with peer review of the calculations that went into this by both other federal and non-federal scientists.

"The conclusions - key conclusions of the report is that the vast majority of the oil has either evaporated, or been burned, skimmed and recovered from the wellhead, or dispersed. And much of the dispersed oil is in the process of relatively rapid degredation."

...snip...

ETA Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQkjPFr33u0

[jpak]

11. She was absolutely correct, and the UGA analysis backed up everything she said

yes indeed

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

25. No, I was pointing out where the confusion began. Unless someone

understands the definition of "dispersed", they might be confused when taking everyting together as it was stated by Lubchenko.

And let me tell you someting right fucking now, Pron. I'm as sick of your shit as I can be. I have NEVER been intentionally dishonest on this board and I deeply resent your attempt to paint me in such a light. So, a little project for you, Pron: go find a single instance in my history on this board and demonstrate to everyone that your perception of my dishonesty is justified. You, on the other hand, have quite the negative reputation on this board, which is richly deserved. Don't you EVER accuse me of being dishonest agian. Do you understand me?

Oh, and by the way, I RECCED the fucking OP. You got that, Pron?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Awww

:nopity:

[Subdivisions]

28. Just about what I expected from you. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Didja expect this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8955812#8955829

[Subdivisions]

40. The word 'Gee' in that post indicates that sarcasm is forthcoming...

I was poking fun at the media's portrayal of the oil supposedly being "gone" when in fact it has gone below the surface of the water, as I've been saying all along. Just because the context escapes you does not mean that I am now or ever have been intentionally dishonest. It has been my contention all along that the "vast majority" of the oil has gone below the surface. Mr Cooper confirmed that.

(Ed for spelling)

[jpak]

29. Accurate reporting was not the goal of the media - sensationalism is what we got

thanks for the rec

:hi:

[Subdivisions]

33. I think it's highly suspicious that the word 'dispersed' was used

in amongst all the other "oil is gone" language. She did go on to explain it but once she said the words I bolded in my post above, that was the media's story. The media is to blame for siezing on "the oil is gone", making no mention at all of the oil that is still under the surface, dispersed or otherwise.

"Dispersed" certainly does not allow for "gone". But many were confused by the lack of analysis and clarification in the corpo-media.

[jpak]

37. Yes, that is where a lot of confusion originated - the media never bothered to read the FSR

all those terms were defined in that report

They just chose to ignore them.

[Subdivisions]

41. Which I am convinced was part of the spin that would help put this event

to rest in the mind of the greater public. BP wanted this event out of the press and they're doing their best to accommodate BP.

[jpak]

47. ugh

:shakinghead:

[Subdivisions]

50. I'm still referring to the media, so I'm not sure how to take your 'ugh'

and head-shaking.

[jpak]

52. OK - sorry

:hi:

[Whisp]

24. Thank you, jpak

another massive, deep notch for the lieing media.

and it will pace up toward November.

Let us beware

[Silent3]

35. It's funny how some of the same people who loudly claim distrust...

...of the media, viewing practically everything reported as part of a conspiracy to manipulate and control us, will momentarily forget that distrust if they can leapfrog over the media to spin a conspiracy of paid-off sell-out scientists.

[Poboy]

38. Scientists wary of U.S. report that says only 26 percent of spilled Gulf oil left

Scientists wary of U.S. report that says only 26 percent of spilled Gulf oil left
Published: Tuesday, August 17, 2010, 9:15 PM

The Times-Picayune

Some scientists are voicing doubts about the accuracy of an Aug. 4 intergovernmental agency report asserting that just 26 percent of the estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil released from BP's ruptured wellhead remains to be dealt with onshore and at sea.The highly publicized report, trumpeted on the Aug. 4 front page of the New York Times and unveiled later that day by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco in a White House ceremony attended by Deepwater Horizon incident commander Thad Allen and White House energy adviser Carol Browner, was hailed as a sign of remarkable progress in the Gulf, and led many to question the severity of the spill altogether.

But the report hasn't marinated well during the past two weeks, attracting increasing criticism from scientists for its dubious conclusiveness and lack of substantiation. Written by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, the five-page report includes a pie chart that describes the fate of the oil, broken into seven categories. According to the chart, roughly one-third of the oil that gushed from the wellhead is definitely gone: recovered directly or eliminated by burning, skimming, or chemical dispersion operations.
While that represents roughly 19 percent of the oil removed from the water by response teams, the report reads as if natural processes have eliminated more than twice that amount through evaporation, dissolution or natural dispersion.


Accusations of obfuscation

A congressional investigator, who asked not to be named, said his repeated requests to NOAA for specific formulas and calculations have gone unmet. The level of obfuscation surrounding the origins of the figures, he said, would never be accepted if the report were presented for publication in an academic journal.

Kerry St. Pe, director of the Barataria Terrebone National Estuary Program, has no confidence in the figures, despite their being reported "as gospel." Federal scientists can't determine exactly how much oil has even entered the Gulf, let alone calculate with accuracy what has happened to it since, St. Pe said.


http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/08/scientists_wary_of_us_report_t.html

[jpak]

42. Oh please - read the UGA pdf

Neither the FSR or the UGA report has been peer reviewed - both acknowledged the uncertainties in their estimates.

The UGA group confirmed the conclusions of the FSR.

unnamed investigator - ugh

Is that what we believe - unnamed sources?

:thumbsdown:

[SidDithers]

48. K&R...

facts are good.

Sid

[jpak]

53. Before this thread dies

I'd love to see the number of recs and unrecs - quite a war going on

:D