In late July, 2010, tropical storm Bonnie passed through the Gulf of Mexico. It wasn’t clear what it would do to the oil leaked into the water there. NASA has been heavily monitoring the oil using satellites, and on July 28 took this image with the Aqua satellite:
[Click to enlarge.]
The swirls are likely to be oil still floating in the water. It’s not completely certain because there are other factors that can affect this type of imagery. However, it does appear that Bonnie dissipated some of the surface slick, though the oil remaining is apparently not recoverable.
NASA imagery like this can help efforts to clean up the leak, as well as understand how disasters like this propagate. And don’t forget: this only shows the surface oil. Hundreds of millions of liters of oil roared up from beneath the Earth’s surface. It may be decades before we learn the full extent of the damage wrought.
NASA has also provided a fascinating FAQ about their satellite imagery of the region. I suggest reading it. More knowledge is a good thing.
Image credit: Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team
August 10th, 2010 at 7:41 am
Cool picture.
I’ve seen many satellite photos and maps like this one, since the oil spill began. Most times, there is a nit I’d like to pick, and today was the final straw. The term “Mississippi Delta” does not refer to that bit of land in the picture. Although it is the delta of the Mississippi River, so it’s partially correct, I guess. It’s confusing, but “Mississippi Delta” refers to a geographic region in north-western Mississippi, along the river. It was a true delta, but that was way back in pre-history. It’s where the blues came from, if anyone wants to know.
That is all.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:07 am
@Powerdroid:
What do you suggest we call the ‘delta of the Mississippi River?’
August 10th, 2010 at 8:13 am
Well, since Mississippi is both a state and a river, we get specific and call that the Mississippi River Delta.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Is there technology that can be employed to see the underlying oil?
August 10th, 2010 at 8:41 am
rmcbride said:
Is there technology that can be employed to see the underlying oil?
http://bieniosek.com/gallery/mm/lrg_xray_specs?full=1
August 10th, 2010 at 8:51 am
[spits dummy] Waahhhh!!! This isn’t about astronomy .. waaaaaahhh!!!
Oh wait, was that a satellite image? Yes. Okay, well that’s alright then.
(Because somebody had to say it & this time its my turn to say this joke. )
August 10th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Messier, just don’t mention the underlying political causes of the spill…except when it negatively impacts Democrats, of course; that’s OK.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:09 am
@powerdroid: That is the sort of pedantry up with which I shall not put!
But seriously, the terminology seems awfully inconsistent. “Mississippi Delta” refers to the area in NW Mississippi. The landform at the end of the river is the “Mississippi River Delta”… Yet, over in Egypt, the landform is the “Nile Delta” not the “Nile River Delta”. Likewise, “Ganges Delta” and “Mekong Delta”, to name two more.
Can’t these dang geographers keep things straight??
August 10th, 2010 at 9:31 am
@Brian:
The key here is the term River. Notice that if you look up the Nile, you’ll find it primarily referred to as “The Nile”, not “The Nile River”. Same for the Ganges. Hence the lack of the word “River” in “Nile Delta” and “Ganges Delta”. Essentially, in “Mississippi River”, the term river here is part of the name, thus “The Mississippi River Delta”.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:42 am
@ Mr. Schlosser:
Well, I didn’t make it up, Brian. I was trying to think of another instance where this sort of thing happens. The best I could do was that Kansas City is in Missouri. I know it’s just a name, and therefore, not very crucial. But it’s as if somebody mis-labeled the Texas pan-handle on a map.
Let me put my objection (pointless as it may be) another way. People have heard of “the Mississippi Delta” in songs and books, etc. What’s shown in that picture is not what they’re singing and writing about.
Peace, out.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Forget the names, what really should concern us is the loss of land mass and coastal tide waters. Our ‘control’ of the River has had dire consequences that we’re only beginning to understand.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
But then we have to remember that BP said that only about 30% of the mess is still there since most of it evaporated. Yeah….right….
August 10th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Hey, WTF….. is this true?
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/palin_discovery/?rc=fb_share1
August 10th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
@Powerdroid: Actually, I didn’t know that fact. I always assumed the “Mississippi Delta” refered to the actual delta. So I learned something new today! I wasn’t intending to hassle you, just riffing on language… which leads to…
@Aerimus: and since “Mississippi” means “Great River”, its the “Great River River Delta”…
I don’t argue that the Nile and Ganges rarely have “river” appended to them, but in my experience, neither does the Mississippi. THE Mississippi, THE Nile, THE Ganges, THE Mekong… My guess is that the landform delta is called “The Mississippi River Delta” only to differentiate it from the region with the similar name… Which I guess was the point. BUT I’m also guessing this is a pretty common misconception.
@Steve: goes without saying
August 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
“Hundreds of millions of liters”?????? What in blazes is this talk about LITERS????? You claim to be an American, so TALK American! The stupid, filthy, idiotic, no-good metric system has no place in this country, and you should be ashamed of yourself for using it. (And just to clarify, I am most emphatically NOT joking.)
August 10th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Wait, I thought we could just solve the whole problem with prayer and/or positive thinking!
August 10th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
@Daniel – Phil is an American AND an astronomer. Astronomers think and work in the metric system. Sorry, dude!
Since you got so vociferous with your opinion, here’s mine:
Our system of measures is antiquated and what it’s based on makes no sense anymore.
The metric system is base-10, and we still have 10 fingers (most of us, anyway), so it makes more sense than the idiotic system WE use. The rest of the world knows this.
There sure is a lot of buzz on the net about Sarah Palin and The Discovery Channel. I’ll hold judgement until I’ve seen an episode or two (or find out it’s a hoax). Maybe it’s all a ruse to lure Republicans into learning some facts about the environment instead of the idiocy they spout much of the time.
August 10th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Barber of Civility is right. Everyone else in the world ditched their native weights and measures. (Sure, Britain used the English System too, but even theirs wasn’t the same as ours–pints, gallons, etc. weren’t the same size as American pints, gallons, and so on.) It’s only our own insularity and arrogance that keeps us from joining the rest of the modern world in the metric system.
Metric is simple, regular, and standardized. The English System is all over the freakin’ place. Twelve inches in a foot, three feet in a yard, 5,280 feet in a mile–wth? If metric is stupid, idiotic, and no-good, just what does the English System have over it? Except, of course, that you grew up with it and are used to it?
August 10th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Wow, Leon! You said exactly what I was thinking, almost word-for-word! The only reason I didn’t say it is because of my Nom du ‘Net.
August 10th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Metric/Imperial
Just religions like Young Earth/Old Earth …
No one likes what they grew up with being changed because we all think we’re the best …
{Shrugs}
when we know Phil is the Best … and he wrote a book !
August 10th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Uh, Old Earth isn’t a religion. It’s science. (Unless you mean Old Earth Creationism, in which case [emily latella] Never mind [/emily latella])
August 10th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
12. Tom
Actually, BP is probably right. There are numerous volatile(is, they evaporate at room temp) hydrocarbons in oil. It’s where we get propane, butane, pentane,etc and all those will have evaporated by now. Which, as far as the sea life is concerned is good, since those volatiles are also the most toxic part of oil. The last five to ten percent or so of oil is what we use for road surfaces(asphalt and that percentage depends on whether it’s light or heavy crude). Gasoline accounts for about 10 percent of every barrel.
The “oil” that accumulates on critters is pretty much the same as what we use to lubricate our car engines.
Gary 7
August 10th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Daniel, I am curious. Why do you find the metric system to be “stupid, filthy, idiotic, no-good“?
August 10th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
@ ^ Mark Hansen : Seconded by me. Daniel what is *your* problem with the metric system exactly?
Metric makes most sense for me & is what I grew up with. I think pretty much the rest of the world really wishes the USA would see reason and adopt it.
BTW. I think one of the founders of the Amercian Republic – Benjamin Franklin (?) – was actually involved in the metric system and keen to have it adopted so metric = “unAmerican” maybe not-so-much.
It is starting to seem that the Gulf oil spill wasn’t quite as bad as has been (over?) hyped & the most hysterical predictions during the spill now look rather too far Over-The-Top which is a very good thing. Not that I’m saying it *isn’t* bad or anything, just not so much as some had argued rather melodramatically before. The Gulf of Mexico will recover eventually – probably much quicker and better than many feared – although, yes, a lot of environmental damage has been done. Let’s not forget that fact that people died in the initial rig explosion and sinking too.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:06 am
I really doubt SIX HUNDRED MILLION Liters of oil being dumped into the Gulf of Mexico can ever be over-hyped.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:38 am
@#15 Daniel – we’ll stop talking in litres (correct spelling) when you Yanks learn how much a gallon REALLY is.
August 11th, 2010 at 6:13 am
Brian Schlosser (14) said:
Well, I reckon that’ll be a common misconception over here in Europe, right enough. Most Europeans have heard of the Mississippi (even if they can’t necessarily spell it!) and will be aware that a state is named for the river, but are probably only aware of one Mississippi delta, and that’s the one at the river mouth (unless they’ve been there).
Why, it’d almost be as crazy as naming two places Paris, Birmingham, Newcastle or Frankfurt!
Or naming three places Washington.
August 11th, 2010 at 7:01 am
What is this “Mississippi River” of which you all speak? That river between Illinois and Iowa is called the “Missisloppy” for good reason.
BTW, the UK hasn’t completely abandoned their namesaked system of measures. Sure, they sell petrol in litres, but the roadsigns were still in miles and beer was still sold by the pint. (At least when I last visited.) And I’m having a hard time believing that Daniel isn’t simply trolling here…
“Why, it’d almost be as crazy as naming two places Paris, Birmingham, Newcastle or Frankfurt!”
Are you referring to Paris, IL; Paris, TN; Paris, KY; Paris, MO; Paris, AR; Paris, MI; Paris, IA; Paris, VA; or Paris, SC?
August 11th, 2010 at 7:53 am
You know, I made a pretty good joke up there about how to see under the water to find the oil. Included visual aids and everything.
You may laugh now.
>(
August 11th, 2010 at 9:40 am
@ #23, 24– The traditional system of measurement is based primarily on the human world, and on easily observable things. For that reason alone it’s MUCH more sensible and logical than the metric system. Nobody can look down at the ground or look at a map and see how long a given fraction of a meridian is. Nor can anybody look at a molecule and see how fast it vibrates. On the other hand, virtually everybody on earth knows how long a foot is by simple observation. And if you want to know how long a yard is, you simply spread your arms or measure with your forearm. On most adults, the distance from the elbow to the fingertips is right around 18 inches. And in years past, an acre was the amount of land that a typical team of oxen could plow in a day.
Another stupid thing about the metric system is that for some things, there’s really no good unit of measurement because you have to use either really small units or really big ones relative to the thing being measured. For example, people’s heights. The foot works perfectly for that. But in the metric system, you have to say either “1.x meters” or else “100+” centimeters. That’s just plain stupid.
To replace the traditional, human-based system with one that’s based on artificial and arbitrary standards is simply illogical and irrational. The ONLY logical thing about the metric system is the powers of ten aspect. And that’s not nearly enough reason to even think about adopting it.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Daniel: If you want to know why the yard is outdated, simply round up, say, 100 people of variable heights and get them to spread out their arms.
Compared to the current SI definition of the metre, I’d say the yard ends up looking pretty bad.
Besides, people all over the earth who grew up learning metric know how long a metre is by simple observation.
And finally, why would you defend a sloppy measurement system on the basis of tradition? Argument from tradition is rarely persuasive in any other case.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
I have never lived close to a river.. so I never thought twice about deltas/related to them in my geography class way back in school. Here was my opportunity to read about them again.. coz the geographical formation in the photograph seemed very weird to me.. a long length of land jutting out to the ocean, just so that it can carry the river??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_delta tells me that its a formation called “birds foot delta”.
The Wiki also says, The Greek historian Herodotus coined the term delta for the Nile River delta because the sediment deposited at its mouth had the shape of the upper-case Greek letter Delta: Δ.
Question: How could Herodotus see this shape?? Its apparently a 240*160 km region.. so unless seen from space (or surveyed using modern mechanisms), you cant see the shape.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:01 pm
DennyMo (28) said:
Say what?
Obviously, I was referring to the two Parises of which Cyndi Lauper was aware when she played in Paris. As she described them “Not Paris Texas; Paris France“.
I was not aware that 9 other US states had a place called Paris. I have learned something unexpected today.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
DennyMo (28) said:
Oh, it’s even more – erm – interesting than that.
Beer is sold by the pint (most commonly, except imported beers that are sold by the bottle, where the bottle could contain anything from 250 mL to 500 mL). Petrol is sold by the litre, and so is diesel. Inidentally, a pint is 568 mL, or the quntity of water that weighs a pound and a quarter at room temperature. Petrol and ice cream both used to be sold by the gallon. But that’s an Imperial gallon (4.5 L), not a US gallon (3.8 L). An Imperial gallon of water thus weighed 10 lb (see, it does use base 10).
Road signs are in miles (and car speedometers are in mph), or in yards (where one yard = 91.44 cm, or 0.5 fathom). However, horse races are run over furlongs (1 furlong = 220 yards, or 10 cricket wicket lengths). We also used to have rods, chains, ells, perches and fathoms all to measure distance (but fathoms were mainly used in the nautical context).
Fresh produce such as vegetables is sold by the kilogram, as are cheese and meat, but larger, heavier things are sold by the tonne or by the ton. (1 tonne = 1000 kg, but 1 ton = 20 cwt = 160 stone = 2240 Imperial lb, and I can’t remember if this is the same weight as an American lb. I gather that the Imperial ton is known in the US as the “long” ton, because there is also a “short” one of 2000 lb IIUC. Since 1 kg = 2.2 lb, the tonne and the ton differ by just 40 lb or 18.182 kg.)
Car tyres are the oddest ones: they use mm, % and inches (to specify width, profile and wheel diameter respectively). So one day, my 225/40 R18 tyres may be 225/90 R457.2 if everything were to be specified in mm instead.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
@ ^ Nigel Depledge :
In Australia beer is sold by the pint, the schooner, the stubby, the can, the six-pack, the carton.. & now I’m salivating!
@ 30. Daniel :
The imperial system is even more arbitrary and artifical – because as has been pointed out people’s heights and feet vary in size. The amount oxen can plough in a day varies too depending onthe fitness and antur eof the oxen & skillof the ploughsman.
Traditionally, the exact definitionof feet or yard was linke dto taparticular individual -usuaully theKing or Emperor -and this varied from ruler toruler, place toplace. Hard to get more arbitrary or confusing than that methinks.
The metric system, OTOH, uses a precise physical standard which is carefully – and globally – calibrated & determined.
@28. DennyMo :
Wow so many pareees. I never knew there were that many. But you forgot one there – Paris .. Hilton!
August 11th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Yeck, typos, sorry. That’s :
Just to make it clear & readable.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:59 am
@#13 (techskeptic): It sadly is. It’ll be on TLC.
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sarah-palin-alaska/sarah-palin-alaska.html
August 12th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Daniel (30) said:
OK, so tell me – on what are the fathom, the ell, the perch, the chain and the rod based?
Logical? The imperial unit system logical?
Surely you jest!!
Or have you never tried to do any actual calculations using imperial units to convert speed and mass into energy (for instance)?
Once you get beyond the simplest stuff (and even that can be confusing, because if you do a dimensional analysis of, say, fuel consumption, you end up with a figure in “per-acres”), the whole thing is full of many different fudge-factors. The SI (not the “metric” system) uses units that can all be derived from – IIRC – four fundamental units: these are the metre, the kilogram, the second and the Coulomb. Everything else, from the Henry to the Joule to the Newton to the Pascal to the Watt, is derived from and defined in terms of these four.
And very few people have feet that are exactly 12″ in length. Or an arm that is exactly 36″ in length. Or, come to think of it, a thumb joint that is exactly one inch in length.
And how, precisely, do you define the horsepower when there are hundreds of different breeds of horses with different strength? Surely a racehorse represents a different horsepower from a Clydesdale?
No, but the second has to be defined by something that is universal, constant and precisely measurable. The solar day is only two of these, and precise measurement is only possible in certain (very very flat) places.
One arm, actually.
Well, mine’s 18.5 ” approx, so does that mean that my yard should be 37″ in stead of 36″, or does it mean I should redefine the inch?
And besides, it depends on which part of the elbow you measure from. Sure, this system can be useful enough if you don’t need precision, but guess what? Modern science and engineering need far higher precision than can be otained with such archaic definitions.
But how do you define a “typical” team of oxen? And what if everyone used horses instead of oxen to plough their acre?
Actually, there is a decimetre (the existence of which you could have deduced had you but thought a little). How about say someone is 17 dm tall? Or is that still too “stupid”?
And do you therefore complain about the American habit of quoting a person’s weight in pounds? The stone is a perfectly reasonable unit for a person’s weight (I currently weigh about 11 stone, for example), but most inhabitants of North America will use pounds instead. And this will give a figure that will almost always be between 100 and 300 (unless a person is either wasting away or obese). Is that “stupid” too?
Do you actually know what the SI is based upon?
It is no more arbitrary (for length, mass, time and charge) than the Imperial system. However, for other properties it is far less arbitrary, and far more logical.
Wrong. In several ways.
The most logical aspect (which seems to have eluded you) is that it removes all the fudge factors from physical relationships.
Take F = ma, for example.
The Imperial system (using pounds of force) has several flaws. First, using the same unit for two different properties (mass and force). Second, because there are no “fundamental” units for acceleration or mass, you have to know to convert mass into pounds and acceleration into feet per second squared in order to get an answer in pounds force. Thus, the fudge factors will be different depending on what units you have used to measure the mass and the acceleration. Third, using Imperial units, the equation defies dimensional analysis – which can be a very powerful tool in certain circumstances. The force unit should actually be pound-feet-per-second-squared, not pounds (but, because of the flaws of the Imperial system, that carries the risk of confusion with a common Imperial unit for torque, the foot-pound).
The SI defines everything in terms of fundamental units – so there is only one unit for mass, with different prefixes for different orders of magnitude (yes, the tonne is not actually an SI unit, even if it is “metric”). Similarly, there is only one unit for acceleration, again with different prefixes for different orders of magnitude. The system is built for conversion into the fundamental units (and it is widely acknowledged that they cocked it up on mass, because it is the kilogram, not the gram, that is the fundamental unit). Thus, when converting into fundamental units for mass and acceleration (which is simplicity itself, because all you need to do is change the order of magnitude to get the right prefixes), your answer will always come out in Newtons. No fudge factors needed.
So, what’s so “logical” about the Imperial system?
August 12th, 2010 at 6:09 am
#37 Nigel:
I couldn’t have put it better myself! I agree entirely with all that – and I’m British.
Just one small nitpick… the second is no longer defined in terms of the frequency of an atomic transition – though the metre is still defined in terms of the wavelength of one. The second is now defined in terms of the speed of light. Some years ago, it became possible to measure the velocity of light in vacuum, c, to a precision which matched that of the definition of the second. So the value of c is now defined as a specific value, 2.997924590 x 10**8 m/s, and the second is now defined in terms of that value and the definition of the metre.
Something which annoys me in the UK is that, even when people use metric units, they often do so in an illogical manner. An example is athletics commentators on TV, who invariably quote distances ( e.g. in jumping and throwing events ) in mixed units. e.g. they announce a long jump distance as “8 metres 24 centimetres”, instead of just saying “8.24 metres” – which somewhat defeats the object of having a system in which each quantity has a single unit.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:48 am
In the UK (Britain) the only LEGAL system of measurement is the SI-metric one (metre/kilogram/second units)
HOWEVER, certain old “Imperial” units are specifically permitted, but they are, nonetheless DEFINED in metric terms.
And, of course, a British Pint is bigger than a paltry US one – we arn’t such cissies as to drink our BEER in only 16 floz units, no sir! we take 20 at a go …..
August 12th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Okay, Mississippi Delta: keep the state name, rename the river to “Good Luck New Orleans”. So here we are looking at the Good Luck New Orleans Delta. If you want to be specific you can say “Next Time” in the middle. “The Good Luck Next Time New Orleans Delta”. But of course that is NOT the Specific Ocean there…
Measurement: you don’t seem to have used the word “cubit”, but it’s a wonderful thing. A ten cubit radius circle has a thirty cubit circumference. Not thirty-one plus some. Don’t believe me? It says so in the bible. For those damn athiest scientists this apparently is enough reason to NOT use cubits. It seems they like to do it man’s way, the hard way… wait, that sounds dirty.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:31 am
The Mississippi Delta is not the same as the Mississippi River delta. Same as the Gulf Coast is not the Gulf of Mexico coast.
August 13th, 2010 at 3:27 am
@ Neil Haggath (39) -
Well, I knew there were movements a little while back towards redefining the second to obtain even greater precision, but I was not aware that it had recently been redefined.
If you find mixed units annoying, don’t ever try to buy new tyres for your car!