CIA backs $630,000 study into how to control global weather through geoengineering

English: The SPICE project will investigate the feasibility of one so-called geoengineering technique: the idea of simulating natural processes that release small particles into the stratosphere, which then reflect a few percent of incoming solar radiation, with the effect of cooling the Earth with relative speed. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to US website 'Mother Jones' the CIA is helping fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that will investigate whether humans could use geoengineering - which is defined as deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth's climatic system - to stop climate change.

The NAS website describes the study as an investigation into "a limited number of proposed geoengineering techniques, including examples of both solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques."

The purpose of this is to comment "generally on the potential impacts of deploying these technologies, including possible environmental, economic, and national security concerns", the website claims.

Solar radiation management (SRM) is a theoretical branch of geoengineering which moots the idea of reflecting sunlight in an attempt to block infrared radiation and halt rising temperatures.

The cost of the project is reported to be $630,000, which NAS is splitting with the CIA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA reports say. Read more >>

Drought Season's Early Start Presages Another Bleak Year

Conditions in more than half of the United States have slipped into a pattern that climatologists say is uncomfortably similar to the most severe droughts in recent U.S. history, including the 1930s Dust Bowl and the widespread 1950s drought.

The 2013 drought season is already off to a worse start than in 2012 or 2011—a trend that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) say is a good indicator, based on historical records, that the entire year will be drier than last year, even if spring and summer rainfall and temperatures remain the same. If rainfall decreases and temperatures rise, as climatologists are predicting will happen this year, the drought could be even more severe.

The federal researchers also say there is less than a 20 percent chance the drought will end in the next six months.

"There were certainly pockets of drought as we went into spring last year, but overall, the situation was much better than it is now," said Tom Karl, a climatologist and director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. "We are going to have to watch really closely ... Last year was bad enough." Read more >>

Could a solar event spark food riots and meltdowns - one scientist says yes

C3-class Solar Flare Erupts on Sept. 8, 2010 [Detail] (Photo credit: NASA Goddard Photo and Video)

Read about “The Carrington Event” -- a massive solar flare that hit Earth in 1859. 

If Earth is struck by a large solar flare, some in the scientific community believe:

* The planet will be hit with a widespread loss of power.
* Air travel would be grounded.
* Nuclear plants would be crippled and without sufficient back-up power, dozens could meltdown.
* Satellites would be disabled, causing a serious loss of communication in all areas (military and civilian).
* Food and medicine would be in short supply, setting up the potential for food riots within days of an outage.

The same scientists who believe that a large solar strike could lead to a very rapid societal breakdown say that steps to avoid the problem are available and at a relatively low cost to all of us. What is a “relatively low cost?” They estimate the amount of money needed to insulate the power grid (and ourselves) from trouble to be less than one dollar per American. But Congress said “no” to their proposal.

Is there really cause for concern?

Over the next fourteen months Earth will be on high alert for a huge burst of electromagnetic energy from the sun. This powerful pulse is known as a “Solar Maximum” – an event that could cause catastrophic damage to power grids and communications systems. The peak time for the next big flare is sometime between now and the end of 2013. This possibility has scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on alert. Tom Bogdan, the director of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, is monitoring the situation as closely as possible. Read more >>

Majority of US in a Drought

U.S. drought grows to cover widest area since 1956

The drought gripping the United States is the widest since 1956, according to new data released Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Fifty-five percent of the continental U.S. was in a moderate to extreme drought by the end of June, NOAA's National Climactic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said in its monthly State of the Climate drought report. That's the largest percentage since December 1956, when 58 percent of the country was covered by drought.

Last week, a government report said 2011's record drought in Texas was made "roughly 20 times more likely" because of man-made climate change, specifically meaning warming that comes from greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports.

The study, requested by NOAA, looked at 50 years of weather data in Texas and concluded that man-made warming had to be a factor in the drought. Read more>>

Panel challenges Gulf seafood safety all-clear

Image via Wikipedia'It is unethical to experiment with the health of the U.S. population or military members,' toxicologist says

A New Orleans law firm is challenging government assurances that Gulf Coast seafood is safe to eat in the wake of the BP oil spill, saying it poses “a significant danger to public health.”

It’s a high-stakes tug-of-war that will almost certainly end up in the courts, with two armies of scientists arguing over technical findings that could have real-world impact for seafood consumers and producers.

Citing what the law firm calls a state-of-the-art laboratory analysis, toxicologists, chemists and marine biologists retained by the firm of environmental attorney Stuart Smith contend that the government seafood testing program, which has focused on ensuring the seafood was free of the cancer-causing components of crude oil, has overlooked other harmful elements. And they say that their own testing — examining fewer samples but more comprehensively — shows high levels of hydrocarbons from the BP spill that are associated with liver damage. More.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40494122/ns/us_news-environment

Dead sperm whale found in Gulf

Image via Wikipedia

MyFoxTampaBay.com staff report

GULF OF MEXICO - Scientists have spotted a dead sperm whale in the Gulf of Mexico, and are doing tests to see if the oil spill had anything to do with its death.

The whale was found floating 77 miles due south of the Deepwater Horizon spill site.

It is the first dead whale spotted since BP's rig exploded on April 20.

The whale was not found in oiled waters, but scientists can't yet say where or how it died.

They say its condition suggests it has been dead for several days to more than a week, and they are taking samples from it to glean information on how and where it died.

It's estimated that between 1,400 and 1,660 sperm whales live year-round in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA, they spend most of their time in the upper Gulf offshore area.

They live at depth in areas where subsurface dispersants and oil are present, and feed on deepwater squid, which may also be impacted by the oil and dispersants.

The sperm whales are an endangered species, and some scientists say that just a few sperm whale deaths could endanger the long-term survival of the Gulf's entire native sperm whale population.

The NOAA ship that spotted the whale is due back in port July 2. After that, they say full analysis of the samples will take several weeks.

Even in the face of new flow estimates, Obama Admin attempts to minimize report of BP oil flow

Andre Damon with WSWS writes:
Even in the face of the new estimates, Obama administration officials are seeking to minimize the rate of flow to the extent possible. On Sunday, Allen put the flow rate at about 40,000 barrels a day, and claimed absurdly that the true rate will only be known “when we have it completely capped, control the flow, can actually measure” it.

At the same time, Allen defended BP, saying that earlier estimates “were never BP’s figures. They were our figures. We have several different methods of trying to establish the flow rate, from taking overhead satellite imagery of the oil on the water to using very high resolution video to try to assess the volume of the flow and velocity at which it’s rising.”

What Allen did not mention is that earlier independent figures based on these methods—and in the face of attempts by BP to block access to imagery of the leak itself—conform to the current high estimates. Weeks before the government increased its initial estimate, independent experts analyzed a video of the spill to conclude that the well was leaking 70,000 barrels per day.

The Alabama Press-Register reported on a video released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) showing scientists discussing a rate of spill of 64,000 to 110,000 barrels per day.

The Obama administration is scrambling to respond to a growing political crisis and contain popular anger. Obama will be traveling to the Gulf of Mexico Monday, after which he will deliver a public address at the White House on Tuesday evening. The following day he will meet with BP executives in the attempt to reach an accommodation with company.

Obama is calling for the creation of an escrow account to pay out claims from residents and workers. Leading Democrats suggested a figure of $20 billion for this account—a tiny fraction of the damage caused by the spill. A study released by Earth Economics, a Seattle-based environmental group, estimates the economic value of the Gulf of Mexico environment at $1.3 trillion, implying that the economic damages of the spill could in reality amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

BP is seeking assurances that its liabilities will be limited. Obama spoke with UK Prime Minister David Cameron on Friday, reassuring him that he had no intention of “undermining” the stock market value of BP. More...

BP - White House Attempt Cover-up Worst Oil Spill in Human History

Image by DigitalGlobe-Imagery via Flickr

Tom Eley
The history of a cover-up
New evidence undermines latest BP-White House estimate of spill size
On Thursday, BP and Obama administration efforts to conceal the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill were delivered another blow when teams of scientists estimated that the rate of the oil spill as of early last week was between 30,000 and 50,000 barrels (1.2 million to 2.1 million gallons) per day, and possibly higher.

The figures are staggering. Fifty-three days after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon that killed 11 workers, somewhere between 63 million and 107 million gallons of oil have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, according to the latest estimates. Between every five and nine days the spill equals the Exxon Valdez, which dumped about 11 million gallons into Alaska’s Prince William Sound in 1989.

An Associated Press analysis notes that, even taking the low-end estimate, “if those 63 million gallons of oil were put in gallon milk jugs, they would line up side by side for nearly 5,500 miles.”

Some scientists, among them Ira Leifer of the government-sponsored Flow Rate Technical Group (FRTG), believe that BP’s decision to cut the riser pipe in order to siphon off a portion of the oil may have actually made the spill far worse. The well could feasibly release as many as 10 million gallons per day, according to a worst-case scenario revealed in paperwork BP submitted for each of its two relief wells.

It appears the spill will continue at least until mid-August—a minimum of 60 more days—and will perhaps drag on into September. This is when relief wells drilled diagonally to intercept with and plug the Deepwater Horizon’s may be completed—although there is no certainty that these can succeed. If it has not done so already, the BP spill by then will have easily eclipsed the worst oil spill on record, the 140 million gallons the Ixtoc I rig dumped off of Mexico’s Gulf coast in 1979 and 1980. According to marine biologists, the environmental and human impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are already far worse than the Ixtoc I, which was mitigated by its location and favorable currents.

The worst oil spill in human history has been, since its first days, the subject of a cover-up carried out by BP and the White House. The Obama administration and the oil giant have repeatedly been forced to increase their estimates in the face of scientific criticism, even as they collude to deny scientists and engineers access to the spill site. But each new official estimate, it has been revealed, was only the latest lie.

The effort to obscure the spill’s dimensions—based on profit calculations for BP and the Obama administration’s desire to promote deep-sea oil drilling—has, from the beginning, made it impossible to determine the best way to respond to the spill. The distance the spill can travel—and the level of the toxicity it can maintain—are based largely on its volume.

When the explosion took place on the Deepwater Horizon on April 20, there was a very high likelihood that the rig would collapse, in which case the riser connecting it to the ocean floor one mile below would crumple and burst. This is in fact what happened. But neither BP nor the Obama administration took practical steps to prepare for that eventuality.

On April 23, even after the rig collapsed, BP insisted there was no spill. This was seconded by Coast Guard officer Mary Landry, who for weeks functioned as spokesman for BP. Oil visible on the surface, BP and the Coast Guard claimed, was fuel from the collapsed rig.

At the time, BP hoped that the failed blowout preventer could be activated by robots to cut off the flow. This proved impossible.In these first four days after the explosion, the attempts of BP and the Obama administration to dismiss the possibility of a spill cost the Gulf Coast dearly. Some experts say that if booms could have been used to encircle what was then a very small spill area, a much larger disaster could have been averted. No such steps were taken.

It was not until a large spill, many miles in diameter, became visible on the ocean’s surface on April 24 that BP admitted there was a spill beyond the fuel that had been aboard the rig. By then the spill was so large booms could not be used to contain it. Presenting no evidence, BP next claimed that a maximum of 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) per day were spilling into the Gulf—a large spill, to be sure, but nothing in comparison to the Exxon Valdez. The claim could not be verified because BP—backed by the Obama administration—refused to allow independent scientific analysis, and refused even to release images of the pipe.

Nonetheless, scientists soon refuted BP’s claims. Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, analyzed only the surface spill to estimate that 9 million gallons of heavy crude had been spilled by April 28, a clip of about 30,000 barrels (1.3 million gallons) per day. SkyTruth, a non-profit environmental analysis firm, put the figure at 12.2 million gallons by May 2, about the same rate. These rates, if they held, would mean that upwards of 60 million gallons would now be spilled—similar to the low-end FRTG released on June 10.

Criticism from these and other scientists finally forced the White House to acknowledge the spill was larger than BP claimed. On April 28, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), estimated that the spill could be at most 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons). The statistic came under immediate and sharp criticism from scientists who noted it was based on a methodology not at all applicable to the BP spill. The 5,000 barrel figure was nonetheless seized on by the media—and after several more days of sticking to the 1,000 barrel claim—by BP as well. Particularly dishonest was the New York Times. The Times had earlier penned an editorial demanding that Obama not relinquish his expansion of deep-sea drilling. On May 4, the newspaper published an absurdly-reasoned “news analysis” (“Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?”) that attempted to raise doubts over whether the spill was a significant event at all. (See, “New York Times minimizes Gulf oil spill”).

BP reportedly has had 12 video cameras providing live footage of the spill from the ocean floor since soon after the explosion, but for weeks it refused to allow the public—and possibly even the Obama administration—the right to view this footage. After mounting criticism, BP on May 12 released a brief, pre-recorded clip of one of what was reported to be three leaks in the collapsed riser pipe.

A journalist from National Public Radio (NPR) took the footage to three experts for separate types of scientific analysis. The results were shocking. Timothy Crone, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, put the spill rate at 50,000 barrels (2.1 million gallons) per day. University of California astrophysics professor Eugene Chaing put it in a range of 20,000 to 100,000 barrels daily. Steven Wereley of Purdue University used particle image velocimetry to establish a spill rate of 70,000 barrels per day—which he soon increased to 95,000 barrels—with a margin of error of 20 percent.

In the face of this evidence, the Obama administration and BP steadfastly clung to the official rate of 5,000 barrels per day, repeatedly claiming that there was no way to know how much oil was gushing forth on the ocean floor, and that in any case, knowledge of the dimensions of the spill would not impact the response.

These were both lies. In fact, there were a number of means for calculating the spill rate. BP was aware of at least one of these, since it had recruited two scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts to oversee the implementation of a sonar device for measuring the spill rate. Richard Camilli and Andy Bowen, who have performed many similar measurements, “were poised to fly to the gulf to conduct volume measurements,” the Times reported on May 14. “But they were contacted [just before their departure] and told not to come, at around the time BP decided to lower a large metal container to try to capture the leak. That maneuver failed. They have not been invited again.”

Scientific criticism, mounting popular anger, and the enormous spread of the spill finally forced NOAA to authorize the FRTG study. On May 27, the Obama administration revealed that the group had established a range of the spill of between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day. This too was a lie. In fact, the 12,000 to 19,000 figure represented the range of absolute minimum figures of the various scientists involved. They had not yet come up with a high-end range. Finally, yesterday, on June 10, the scientists on the FRTG released a new range for the rate of the spill of between 30,000 barrels, low-end, and 50,000 barrels.

This data, however, is based on the leak before the riser cut. Leifer told the New York Times on Tuesday that the spill was emitting “way more than it did before [the cut]. I don’t mean by 20 percent. I mean multiple factors.” For his part, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu—who, as a University of California researcher received a huge grant from BP—insisted that cutting the riser pipe did not significantly increase the rate of flow. He also told Reuters that he felt confident that the moratorium on new deepwater oil drilling could soon be lifted.

US Govt to "quarantine" scientific data collected on Gulf

Image by Hendricks Photos via Flickr

maddowblog.msnbc
Scientist fears government muzzle on Deepwater Horizon data

As a professor in the oceanography department at Texas A&M, Steven DiMarco has spent years studying the waters threatened by the Deepwater Horizon. "I can't tell you how many times I've thrown up on a boat in the Gulf of Mexico," he says.

DiMarco may soon have some more he can't tell you -- because the federal government might not let him. In the very early morning hours of June 14, DiMarco and 10 scientists will head out from the Texas coast on the RV Manta dive boat -- a 77-foot catamaran owned by NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And that's where the problem comes in.

DiMarco's team wants to take as many samples and collect as much information as they can about conditions in the Gulf of Mexico, including oxygen levels in the water. DiMarco specializes in hypoxia, meaning the science of what happens when lifeforms haven't got enough oxygen. Whenever there's oil in the water, naturally occurring bacteria swoop in to eat that oil -- and in the process deprive the rest of the ecosystem of oxygen. Scientists worry that rapidly blooming, overfed bacteria could turn sections of the Gulf of Mexico into dead zones, completely anoxic regions where there's very, very little for living things to breathe.

Whatever the group from Texas A&M finds, you might not hear about for an awfully long time. "I'm essentially being told that the data I'm collecting on my hypoxia cruise may or may not be subject to quarantine," DiMarco says. "Which means that we will not be able to publish it, pending the liability litigation. Oh, yeah, 20 years from now, we may be able to publish it."

The professor checked in with us on his way to a conference of marine scientists in Baton Rouge, led by the Consortium for Ocean Leadership. DiMarco says he intends to bring up the government embargo on research, since sharing data and reviewing other researchers' work is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry.

Without a clear guarantee that scientists can freely share what they're learning, DiMarco faces the prospect of going to sea, learning the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill, and being absolutely muzzled. In theory, he and the others could venture out and discover patches of the Gulf that have been emptied of oxygen -- and not be able to tell anyone. "That's the nightmare scenario," he says. You want to be able to get out there and report back immediately."

BP, Coast Guard & Feds Withheld Videos Showing Massive Scope of Oil Spill

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

ABCNews
New videos show more clearly than ever how BP, with little resistance from the Coast Guard or other federal agencies, kept the public in the dark about just how bad things were beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.

On May 1, 11 days after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, and nine days after oil began spilling into the Gulf, the Coast Guard had still only released a single image of oil leaking a mile beneath the surface -- a fuzzy photograph of a broken pipe spewing oil.

But inside the unified command center, where BP and federal agencies were orchestrating the spill response, video monitors had already displayed hours of footage they did not make public. The images showed a far more dire situation unfolding underwater. The footage filmed by submarines showed three separate leaks, including one that was unleashing a torrent of oil into the Gulf.

BP officials said they made all the video available to federal officials.

"The video has been available to the unified command from the very beginning," said Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman. "It's always been here from the beginning. They had it."

Coast Guard officials told ABC News that BP refused to allow them to release the more startling images, arguing they were proprietary. But at the time, the agency was doing little to convey to the world what the images were showing. Coast Guard Admiral Mary Landry was sticking with estimates, calculated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which put the spill's size at about 5,000 barrels a day for several weeks. Coast Guard officials said they were focused on the response, and advised the public not to worry about just how much oil was pouring into the water.

"I would caution you not to get fixated on an estimate of how much is out there," said Adm. Landry.

Two days later, as oil continued to spew, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said much the same thing.

"This fixation on the number of barrels is a little bit misleading," said Napolitano.

BP officials said everyone inside the Unified Command center in Louisiana agreed that the 5,000 barrel figure was the best they could offer.

But Dr. Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer and oil expert at Florida State University said he disagrees, and he remains "baffled and bothered" by the decision to keep under wraps the images that he believes indicated the spill was much bigger.

"We need to know what's coming at us," he told ABC News. "You know, we are Americans, we respond to threats. Don't sugarcoat it. Tell us the truth and we'll do the best we can. And I think that's exactly what didn't happen here. The government, I'm sorry to say has been behind the information curve every step in this process."

Sen. Bill Nelson , a Florida Democrat, said the apparent suppression of the tapes prevented an independent analysis of how much oil was spilling, a move that might eventually save BP millions, since federal fines are based on $1,000 a day per barrel.

The difference between a spill of 5,000 barrels a day and 20,000 barrels a day is $15 million a day. "It clearly tells us why they drug their feet to release these tapes," Nelson said. "I guess they were hoping that they could get it under control and this whole problem would go away."

Criticism of Secret Oil Dispersant in Gulf Grows Louder

Image by DigitalGlobe-Imagery via Flickr

Stacy Feldman

Scientists and ocean advocates stepped up warnings this week of potential dangers from chemical dispersants, as oil giant BP released unprecedented amounts of a classified and toxic chemical to thin the Gulf of Mexico oil slick before it reaches shore.

"Unfortunate recent events in the Gulf Coast have once again brought to the forefront issues pertaining to the impacts of dispersants and dispersed oil," Carys Mitchelmore, a researcher at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, told the Senate Subcommittees on Oversight and Water and Wildlife.

"There's a potential for a toxic soup of unknown effects, which cannot be predicted even if the individual constituents are known."

Response teams have dumped about 436,000 gallons of a chemical dispersant, called Corexit, into the Gulf to battle the leak from BP's sunken Deepwater Horizon ruptured rig—more than has ever been used in the United States.

Some of that is being pumped 5,000 feet underwater at the site of the spill, a deepsea technique that has never been tried. The exact ingredients of chemical dispersants are protected as trade secrets and are unknown.

"Putting this right on the seabed, it's unknown what the consequences will be," said Mitchelmore.

The dispersant, a detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds, breaks down oil into tiny particles that scatter into the sea to prevent crude from washing ashore and wiping out wildlife.

Some analysts describe the chemical stew as a a slow and silent killer, however, quietly altering the balance of food webs, contaminating species and damaging the overall health of the oceans.

John Everett, president of Ocean Associates Inc., a Virginia-based oceans and fisheries consulting firm, said the dispersant could cause more harm than the calamitous spill itself, which is gushing oil at a pace of 210,000 gallons a day and has now exceeded the four-million gallon mark.

"The oil damage will eventually heal. Better procedures will be employed and this oil will be recycled and assimilated," Everett told Congress.

"The flow of chemical materials into our waters is another matter. There are too many insidious contaminants entering our estuaries, causing genetic harm and poisoning our Earth, turtles and seafood."

The harmful chemicals, he said, creep into the food supply and "directly impact us as well."

Soon after the April 20 oil rig blast, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard gave BP the greenlight to spray the dispersant on the water's surface and to test it almost a mile under the sea. The chemical was pre-approved for use in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) Product Schedule.

EPA declares that it has "not given authorization for the full scale use of dispersants underwater beyond initial tests to determine its effectiveness." But that could soon change.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters on Wednesday that so far 28,709 gallons of dispersants had been discharged in the seabed for testing purposes. Jackson said the agency is now waiting on results to determine the chemical's effectiveness in decomposing crude at those depths. Two earlier attempts to test the site failed, she said.

"The effect of underwater dispersant still is unknown," Jackson added.

Working with EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said it was examining water samples on the seafloor near the leak.

On the sea surface, the results of EPA's most recent water samples, gathered from April 30 to May 5, showed that "water quality does not pose increased risk to aquatic life."

Speaking to the subcommittees this week, Jim Jones, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, conceded that the dispersant being deployed "has toxicity associated with it" and that "damage has been done."

He called the tests an "environmental trade-off" between long-term harm to offshore wildlife and fragile lands if the spill were to wash ashore, and potential shorter-term damage to some sea life.

Mitchelmore, said the trade-off is simply the "protection of one habitat...at the cost of another."

"In this case, the protection of shoreline species at the expense of organisms residing in the water column and potentially also those at the seabed," she added.

In regard to Corexit, Mitchelmore said, "limited prior toxicological information exists to fully assess risks to exposed organisms."

But both oil and oil spill dispersants are known to cause a variety of health effects in animals, she added, "including death and a variety of sublethal impacts including reduced growth, reproduction, cardiac dysfunction, immune system suppression, carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects and alterations in behavior."

Jackson said that Corexit is at most one-tenth "as toxic as oil."

Fishing advocacy groups, meanwhile, such as the eight-state Southern Shrimp Alliance (SSA), are fearful of long-lasting effects of a chemical that could eat away at their livelihoods.

"SSA welcomes testing sediments in the water column as a good first step, but fear the 'act now, check later' approach being taken with dispersants," said John Williams, the group's executive director. "These chemicals relocate the oil from the shores to the water column where it will be spread by currents to vital reproductive grounds throughout the western Gulf of Mexico."

Oil blob triples in size - Florida braces for economic and environmental catastrophe

Image via Wikipedia

Miami Herald
Florida environmental and emergency managers acknowledged Saturday that the state can't protect every stretch of coastline threatened by an uncontrolled undersea gusher spewing a massive oil slick that has spread across the Gulf of Mexico faster than expected.

Gov. Charlie Crist, who traveled to the Panhandle to inspect preparations, warned the state could be facing an economic and environmental catastrophe.

``It's simply unbelievable, the magnitude of this,'' said Crist of a looming mess that has more than tripled in size since he surveyed it earlier in the week and is now larger than Miami-Dade and Broward counties. ``It's not a spill, it's a continuous ooze.''

President Barack Obama planned a Sunday visit to the Gulf Coast, where the first shimmering traces were already building into black clumps clinging to marsh grass in the biologically rich Louisiana Delta and darker and far more damaging slop loomed just offshore. Mississippi, Alabama and Florida all were bracing for a nightmare cleanup from the sunken drilling rig that has belched the biggest U.S. spill since the Exxon Valdez and may soon, if not already, exceed that notorious 1989 accident.

With crews struggling to contain the sloshing oil as booms failed in rough seas and chemical dispersants and burning oil showed promising but still-limited success, the Coast Guard and British Petroleum were scrambling to find some way to cap a blown-out well a daunting mile beneath the surface.

``The first thing is to stop this thing at the source,'' said Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thad Allen, tapped Saturday by the Obama administration to take charge of containment forces. ``To continue to fight this thing on the surface and shore is not the way to do it.''

MINIMIZING DAMAGE

Florida environmental chief Michael Sole, traveling with the governor, echoed that view, saying the state's strategy would focus on minimizing damage to coastal marshes, estuaries, seagrass beds and habitats for endangered species.

``You can't boom an entire state,'' Sole said, ``and as you can see with the rough waters, the oil can easily go over or under it.''

In Bay County, one of six western Panhandle counties Crist declared under a state of emergency, there will be nothing arrayed along the famed sugary sands of Panama City Beach.

`It's not a prevention effort because you can't keep it from making landfall on the beaches,'' said Mark Bowen, director of Bay's Emergency Management Center. ``It's a clean-up effort.''

The top priority in Bay was to keep oil out of St. Andrews Bay, a fragile system ringed with shallow marshes, he said. Crews planned to employ booms, but Bowen also had requested that BP supply an oil-skimming vessel stationed at the mouth of the bay.

Bowen said he was hoping favorable winds that had pushed the slick from its closest point of 89 miles back to 127 miles on Saturday would continue.

``There's still a chance that the worst might not come,'' he said.

The official forecast track from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration kept the oil off the Panhandle for at least 72 hours, but Allen warned winds were shifting and state emergency managers considered the weather merely a postponement, not a reprieve. They predicted some impacts by Wednesday. It could affect South Florida if the oil gets swept imto the Gulf's powerful Loop Current, which could steer it into the Florida Keys and then north up the East Coast.

RIPPLE EFFECTS

Some business owners in Panama City Beach were already feeling the ripple effects.

Bob and Nelly Elia, owners of Sunny Sands Motel on Panama City Beach, said two families had canceled stays.

``They're calling now, already, wondering what's going to happen and talking about refunds and all that stuff,'' Bob Elia said. ``The timing couldn't be worse because the season is one month away.''

At the Russell-Fields Pier, which extends 1,500 feet into the Gulf in Panama City, Sheila Sawyer of Dothan, Ala., came toting a fishing rod and a lot of anger.

``We knew we had to come,'' said Sawyer. ``This might be our last chance for awhile.''

In Pass Christian, Miss., 61-year-old Jimmy Rowell, a third-generation shrimp and oyster fisherman, told The Associated Press, ``It's over for us. If this oil comes ashore, it's just over for us. Nobody wants no oily shrimp.''

With estimates escalating of how much oil was flowing from the severed well of the Deepwater Horizon, there were growing concerns over the speed of the response by both BP and the federal government and the inability of an industry that has long boasted of its sophisticated technology and safety record to simply turn off a well.

One huge question -- and a major complication for emergency managers -- is just how much oil has escaped since the floating rig exploded on April 20, leaving 11 workers missing and presumed dead. The Coast Guard's estimate shot from 1,000 barrels a day initially to 5,000 barrels or about 210,000 gallons.

Environmentals have scoffed at those estimates as low-balls. Some scientists tracking the spill agree it has grown larger -- and potentially much more catastrophic -- than containment crews predicted.

SATELLITE IMAGES

Hans Graber, director of the University of Miami's Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing, said satellite and radar imagery shows the spill swelling from about 1,000 square miles to 3,500 in two days. Florida State University oceanographer Ian MacDonald, used satellite images and photos to estimate the spill at eight million to nine million gallons of oil -- as of Thursday.

By comparison, the Exxon Valdez poured 11 million gallons of light crude into pristine Alaskan water. The Coast Guard's official estimate since the April 20 explosion of Deepwater Horizon drilling rig was 1.6 million gallons.

MacDonald said he wasn't trying to play gotcha with the government's effort but simply answer a basic question: How much oil is out there already?

``This unfortunate emergency is going to test our level of preparedness,'' he said. ``The days and weeks to come will determine that. Right now, we have some catching up to do.''

Allen said it was impossible to precisely determine how much oil has fouled the Gulf but called it critical to cap the continuing flow. A permanent fix, a relief well that BP plans to soon begin drilling, could take three months to complete.

``The continued leakage of anything for that period of time is going to cause an extraordinary amount of problems.'' he said.

ROBOTS DEPLOYED

In one new test Allen called promising, BP began pumping dispersants deep underwater, which blend with the oil and sink it. An array of other measures were being considered to keep the oil from washing ashore, including increasing water flows down five rivers feeding Mobile Bay to keep the slick at bay.

BP's efforts to trigger shutoff valves with deep-diving robots have failed so far, but the company is rushing to complete an underwater dome designed to capture the oil and pump it to the surface, an approach that has worked in shallower water.

Other options include crimping the metal wellhead to reduce flow, or cutting it off and slipping a new blow-out preventer over it. Allen cautioned that crushing 5,000-foot depths added significant challenges to any repair plans and said he had asked the Department of Defense to lend help and technology for deep-sea repair. Military planes already are being used to drop chemical dispersants.

Allen and John Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security, defended the Obama administration's efforts in a conference call with reporters, saying the Coast Guard and BP had ramped up efforts as the scope of the crisis became clear, shifting from fighting the rig fire and searching for missing workers to containing a fast ballooning slick.

``As the president has observed this volatile situation,'' Brennan said, ``he has directed that no effort be spared.''

Solar Storms Could Be Earth's Next Katrina

scpr.org

Feb. 27, 2010 | Jon Hamilton | NPR

Download

Every few decades, the sun experiences a particularly large storm that can release as much energy as 1 billion hydrogen bombs. Officials from Europe and the U.S. say an event like that could leave millions on Earth without electricity, running water and phone service.

A massive solar storm could leave millions of people around the world without electricity, running water, or phone service, government officials say.

NASA via Getty Images

In this handout photo provided by NASA, a Solar and Heliospheric Observatory image shows Region 486 that unleashed a record flare last week (lower left) November 18, 2003 on the sun. The spot itself cannot yet be seen but large, hot, gas-filled loops above this region are visible. These post-flare loops are still active.

That was their conclusion after participating in a tabletop exercise that looked at what might happen today if the Earth were struck by a solar storm as intense as the huge storms that occurred in 1921 and 1859.

Solar storms happen when an eruption or explosion on the surface of the sun sends radiation or electrically charged particles toward Earth. Minor storms are common and can light up the Earth's Northern skies and interfere with radio signals.

Every few decades, though, the sun experiences a particularly large storm. These can release as much energy as 1 billion hydrogen bombs.

How Well Can We Weather The Solar Storm?

The exercise, held in Boulder, Colorado, was intended to investigate "what we think could be close to a worst-case scenario," says Tom Bogdan, who directs the Space Weather Prediction Center in Boulder. The Center is a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"It's important to understand that, along with other types of natural hazards, (solar) storms can cause impacts," says Craig Fugate, Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), who also took part in the tabletop exercise.

Bogdan and Fugate say that eventually there will be another storm as big as the ones in 1921 and 1859 — a sort of solar Katrina.

But the impact is likely to be far worse than in previous solar storms because of our growing dependence on satellites and other electronic devices that are vulnerable to electromagnetic radiation.

In the tabletop exercise, the first sign of trouble came when radiation began disrupting radio signals and GPS devices, Bogdan says.

Ten or 20 minutes later electrically charged particles "basically took out" most of the commercial satellites that transmit telephone conversations, TV shows and huge amounts of data we depend on in our daily lives, Bogdan says.

"When you go into a gas station and put your credit card in and get some gas," he says, "that's a satellite transaction."

Disabled Satellites Are Just The Beginning

The worst damage came nearly a day later, when the solar storm began to induce electrical currents in high voltage power lines. The currents were strong enough to destroy transformers around the globe," Bogdan says, leaving millions of people in northern latitudes without power.

Without electricity, many people also lost running water, heat, air conditioning and phone service. And places like hospitals had to rely on emergency generators with fuel for only two or three days, Bogdan says.

In many ways, the impact of a major solar storm resembles that of a hurricane or an earthquake, says Fugate.

But a solar Katrina would cause damage in a much larger area than any natural disaster, Fugate says. For example, power could be knocked out almost simultaneously in countries from Sweden to Canada and the U.S., he says. So a lot more people in a lot more places would need help.

Individuals don't need to make any special preparation for a solar storm, Fugate says. The standard emergency kit of water and food and first aid supplies will work just fine.

"If you've got your family disaster plan together, you've taken the steps, whether it be a space storm, whether it be a system failure, whether it be another natural hazard that knocks the power out," Fugate says.