Slashdot Mirror


Trillions of Plastic Pieces May Be Trapped In Arctic Ice

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "Humans produced nearly 300 million tons of plastic in 2012, but where does it end up? A new study has found plastic debris in a surprising location: trapped in Arctic sea ice. As the ice melts, it could release a flood of floating plastic onto the world. From the article: 'Scientists already knew that microplastics—polymer beads, fibers, or fragments less than 5 millimeters long—can wind up in the ocean, near coastlines, or in swirling eddies such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. But Rachel Obbard, a materials scientist at Dartmouth College, was shocked to find that currents had carried the stuff to the Arctic.'"

136 comments

  1. It didn't take long to leave our mark in the sea by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This reminds me of that passage in Gene Wolfe's The Book of the New Sun where the inhabitants of a far-future Earth note how the debris of past ages is all around them:

    I have heard those who dig for their livelihood say there is no land anywhere in which they can trench without turning up the shards of the past. No matter where the spade turns the soil, it uncovers broken pavements and corroding metal; and scholars write that the kind of sand that artists call polychrome (because flecks of every color are mixed with its whiteness) is actually not sand at all, but the glass of the past, now pounded to powder by aeons of tumbling in the clamorous sea.

    Instead of aeons needed to turn glass to microparticles, humanity has managed to litter the seas with plastic bits in only around a century. If humanity goes extinct, perhaps one day visitors from another planet would know there was once sentient life here from the remains of our PET bottles and beer six-pack rings in the ice?

  2. Make up your mind.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's melting it's not melting....

    1. Re:Make up your mind.. by Travis+Mansbridge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When it gets cold, water turns to ice. When it gets warm, ice turns to water. The fact that both of these things occur naturally is not a statement on climate change.

    2. Re:Make up your mind.. by Layzej · · Score: 1

      It freezes in the winter. It melts in the summer. The overall trend is down: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

  3. With global warming... by usacoder · · Score: 0, Troll

    the plastic won't be trapped for long.

    1. Re:With global warming... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Possible but I think this Ducks cross the Arctic. shows that the researcher is a moron. This has been happening for years.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. the Arctic?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm shocked, shocked to find that plastic is going here!

  5. Argl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I read stuff like this, sometimes I'm ashamed to be a human being. :(

    1. Re:Argl by Evtim · · Score: 1

      The humans are parasites only under the current paradigm not per se. You seem to be under the delusion that it is "our way or the highway" situation. False dichotomy it is called. All docile, ignorant, sociopathic and moronic people use this "argument"

    2. Re:Argl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would mean you are a liberal. Liberalism is a philosophy for losers. For the inferior. It is shame-based. It is for the pussies of the world, which would explain it's tremendous success.

    3. Re:Argl by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the delusion that it is "our way or the highway" situation.

      Ironically, it's environmentalists who are most notorious for taking that approach.

      Sane person: "Hey, we can convert now to natural gas and nuclear and put a lot less CO2 in the air."

      Environmentalist: "No, only wind and solar are acceptable."

      Sane person: "But they're not ready yet to hand main loads. In the meantime, let's go with nuclear and natural gas and start making some real progress at least."

      Environmentalist: "No, only wind and solar are acceptable."

      Sane person: "What about hydroelectric at least? That's as clean as it gets. You lose some fish, but it generates no CO2."

      Environmentalist: "No, only wind and solar are acceptable."

      Sane person: "You do understand that refusing to compromise at all is essentially the same thing as supporting coal, right? By refusing to support technologies that can have a real impact on CO2 emissions now, just because they're not perfect, you're basically sabotaging any hope of real progress."

      Environmentalist: "No, only wind and solar are acceptable."

      Sane person: "So, we keep burning coal then and nothing changes?"

      Environmentalist: "....basically, yes."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    4. Re:Argl by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Wind power and concentrated solar power are quite good at killing birds, including endangered and legally protected species.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. 1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by dinfinity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    nearly 300 million tons of plastic in 2012 [...] reaching 288 million tonnes in 2012

    http://bash.org/?2999

    Estimates of how much of that production has been trapped in Arctic ice provided in the article:
    - "[some of] much of [the total amount of plastic produced]"
    - "more than 1 trillion pieces of plastic"
    - "abundances of hundreds of ['fragments less than 5 millimeters long' selected using a microscope] per cubic meter"

    Would have really hurt to estimate the weight of those fragments? One plastic bag could easily end up as a million pieces of plastic. About one plastic bag or 10 grams of plastic per 10.000 cubic meters sounds a lot less dramatic, I guess.

    1. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the smallest particles that are the most dangerous. They get eaten by small organisms, which get eaten by larger ones, and which eventually become our food.

      Also, it is important to mention really large numbers if you want to get attention in the media. One trillion particles!! *puts pinky finger near corner of mouth*

      Perhaps it would be even better to change the title: "1 trillion reasons to clean up the Antarctic. What you read in this article will blow your mind!"

    2. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You won't believe what happens next!"

    3. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's the smallest particles that are the most dangerous. They get eaten by small organisms, which get eaten by larger ones, and which eventually become our food.

      The question then becomes, how dangerous are these plastic particles in our food? Most of them aren't that dangerous to us on that basis, because they are very very stable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be floating around in the ocean waiting for UV to break them down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A big plastic bag in the arctic ice wouldn't be that bad, a nuissance but no further harm. The microscopic pieces get eaten by animals and eventually end up in your food.

    5. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by dinfinity · · Score: 2

      Yes, and even though I'm speculating here, I'd say that it is also quite likely that the particles would simply be excreted by us and our food. In fact, if that were the case, one would expect the particles to become less prevalent as you move higher up the food chain and even then mostly in the contents of the digestive tract of the animals (which most people avoid eating. I know I do).

      I'm not saying that the particles couldn't be dangerous at all, or that dumping plastics into the ocean isn't terrible, just that when it comes to 'small stuff that could be bad for your health' there is a difference between sand, heavy metal ions, asbestos and algae. Alarmist 'plastic is bad, mmkay' isn't going to do us a service.

      Related subject matter:
      http://www.nature.com/news/201...

    6. Re:1 TRILLION pieces of plastic!!! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Some people love the green shit out of lobsters.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. where this stuff comes from by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    these tiny bits exist for a few reasons.
    1. Natural photodegradation permits older plastics to disintegrate into smaller pieces. new plastics impregnated with photo-inhibitors resist this for a seemingly infinite span of time unfortunately.
    2. industrial processes like bead-blasting and resurfacing may sometimes rely on plastics instead of formed metal shot as its cheaper in many cases. plastics are also often fluid-formed from tiny pellets or beads shipped across the world, so naturally losing a conex full of them would contribute.
    3. cosmetics. Pomace, apricot and peach pits used to act as surfactants in many soaps however seasonal limitations of production and particulate dimension were always a factor. They also didnt perform well in gelatinous suspensions like body washes. reprocessing and shredding waste plastics from other manufacturing processes however proved far more economical and reliable. As a result, the "micro beads" in your bottle of Gillette body wash are likely made from reprocessed Gillette body wash bottles that were damaged or defective during the injection moulding process.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:where this stuff comes from by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't live in la florida, do you ?
      it is nearly impossible for plastic products to last any significant amount of time down here, when it is exposed to sun/heat/rain for a couple years...
      got tired of buying new plastic buckets every couple years, so now i only buy old school galvanized steel ones which last -relatively speaking- forever...
      plastic crap gets dried out, brittle, faded, broken within a year or two of exposure...
      (yes, there are *some* few plastics -the dense, 'oily' kind, that last longer (NOTE: longer, not indefinitely), but i don't 'trust' those plastics, something is wrong with them...)

    2. Re:where this stuff comes from by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Black plastic is colored with carbon black, which greatly enhances it's UV durability. But it also makes it get screaming hot in the sun, so paint them white.

      Plastic will never last really well, but not all plastic is equal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There was a story on NPR radio a couple days ago..

    http://www.npr.org/2014/05/21/313157701/why-those-tiny-microbeads-in-soap-may-pose-problem-for-great-lakes

    If I remember right those micro plastic beads absorb toxins, and anything that east them is also exposed to toxins, such as fish, then humans not to mention the damage they cause to the environment.

    Maybe a little of topic, but the article is about plastics, and the Arctic Ice.

  9. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Sockatume · · Score: 2

    I recall reading somewhere - and I hope a historian can come along and correct this - that most modern settlements are at a significant elevation because they're on top of the middens and trash of all the previous settlers on that site. If we actually dug out the areas we currently stand on, we'd find all sorts of interesting trash.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  10. It is a good reason to melt the ice cap... by CraigCruden · · Score: 1

    You can't clean up all that garbage without sifting through all the ice...... Thanks, I needed an excuse to continue helping melt the ice cap :p

  11. Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Environmentalist told us it was much better to use plastic bags than paper. Their argument is that it saved trees. My argument is that as long as there is industry that needed paper, tree farms would exist and an equilibrium state would also exist. Paper biodegrades quite nicely, thank you. So instead of reason, we now have billions of plastic bags that won't decompose in the lifetime of my 50th generation of descendants.

    1. Re:Remember by hubie · · Score: 1

      I don't ever recall environmentalists advocating single-use plastic bags over paper.

    2. Re:Remember by Stumbles · · Score: 2

      I do. Just go back to the last century like the 60s and 70s.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    3. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I do too. Thing is, you have to look at the entire process to determine which is "environmentally better". It takes a lot of energy to make paper bags...

    4. Re:Remember by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      Don't need to go back that far (or maybe it was the beginning?). I've heard about it in late 80s...

    5. Re:Remember by Stumbles · · Score: 1

      I don't know that is actually true and have not seen any studies to support one being "more efficient" than the other. Even if paper were less efficient it is way more biodegradable than any plastic. As others have mentioned in this thread, plastic will degrade but not totally like paper. I just remember back when "tree huggers" seemed to be constantly in the news and were more than willing to support any solution so long as some owl had someplace to perch.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    6. Re:Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do too. Thing is, you have to look at the entire process to determine which is "environmentally better". It takes a lot of energy to make paper bags...

      I live in a nation that exports a lot of wood and paper. (A side benefit is that paper bags are of really high quality since the paper haven't been recycled much yet.)
      Energy production is about half hydroelectric and half nuclear. There is a coal power plant that was built for experimental purposes but I am not sure if it is in use.
      I suspect that using paper bags is a lot more environmental friendly for me than it is for someone who lives in a country that uses mainly coal power.

    7. Re:Remember by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I doubt environmentalists anticipated that we'd be getting a polyethylene bag large enough to fit a whole turkey for every single purchase. The very rapid pivot against plastic bags seems entirely justified, and the right decision, doesn't it?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Remember by NotDrWho · · Score: 1, Informative

      I remember it too. It was during the tree-hugging phase in the 70's, IIRC. Environmentalism is a notoriously faddish religion. And at that time it was all the rage to "save the trees." In the 80's this would be dumped in favor of the new hip "save the ozone layer."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    9. Re:Remember by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      And people once imagined that nuclear power would power homes, batteries, cars, etc. As we learn more about a given item, viewpoints change. So when the threat seemed to be "chopping down tons of trees to make paper bags", plastic seemed the better option. Now, though, we see that plastic bags are an even bigger threat to the environment so that's changed. Reusable canvas bags are now considered the best option.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    10. Re:Remember by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I doubt environmentalists anticipated that we'd be getting a polyethylene bag large enough to fit a whole turkey for every single purchase.

      Doesn't your grocery store double-bag? I get TWO such polyethylene bags per item. :-P

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:Remember by operagost · · Score: 1

      The turkey might fit (if it's small), but the bag is so thin that it's unlikely to actually HOLD it. I don't think the size of the bag (which is much less than of the old brown paper bags) is the problem.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Remember by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Just go back to the last century like the 60s and 70s.

      Ok, I went back to the 60's. It was nutty, no doubt, but no one mentioned plastic vs paper while I was there. Perhaps you could include a citation?

    13. Re:Remember by Optali · · Score: 1

      I recall bags made of recycled paper (way before such thing was done because of ecological policy). They accomplished their jobs perfectly. Specially if you put them on a bigger fabric bag. What's wrong with a good hemp fabric bag to carry stuff?

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    14. Re:Remember by Optali · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the waste in oil. Maybe some people don't give a shit about the environment.... but wouldn't they love to be able to pay less to tank their SUV full for a cheaper price? And the same goes for anti-AGW positions ("They are going to tax us to dead", Really? You love paying big bucks for fuel instead?)

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  12. Sea ice age by WhiteZook · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most of the current sea ice is less than 10 years old, as the ice regular melts in the summer, and is replaced by fresh ice in the winter. It's hard to imagine that there are significant amounts of plastic trapped in the ice compared to plastic that is free floating in the ocean.

  13. I'm so shocked... by dam.capsule.org · · Score: 1

    But Rachel Obbard, a materials scientist at Dartmouth College, was shocked to find that currents had carried the stuff to the Arctic.

    So you dump stuff into a giant whirlpool and you're shocked to find that the stuff ends up in various random place. Maybe they thought it would magically disappear ? Oh sorry, we are talking about science.

    I was looking at a river last fall and was shocked to see all the dead leaves agglomerated at a few random place.

    --
    What sig ?
    1. Re:I'm so shocked... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The world's oceans aren't just a big bucket where everything mixes together. In fact one of the characteristic features of the Arctic ocean is that it doesn't strongly interact with the neighbouring systems. That's why it's surprising that there's a significant amount of pollution there.

      Now, if you knew even the first thing about oceanography, you should have known that. I'm not sure if you just have a blind spot for your own lack of information on this topic, or were wilfully ignorant, but assumed you were right out of blind luck.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:I'm so shocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the OPs bigger point and I'm forced, by your tone, to believe that you're missing it on purpose... The same ilk of scientists who are trying to tell us about climate modeling are the same as the ones who are having a hard time grasping why this kind of contamination is going on? Really? And yet they wonder how the masses can be skeptical about their predictions. Not to mention the tons of predictions that these same people have made from models that are obviously flawed that never came to fruition.
       
      Not to even mention that you don't need a strong interaction between these bodies for cross contamination. Thinking that is simply ignorant. This is plastic we're talking about here, not the dynamics of oceanic salinity. If a highly dynamic system such a salinity is influenced by these interaction how the hell could you possibly EVER think that something as stable as plastics wouldn't?!?! You'd have to be a moron to think that a stable element in the flows of the ocean would somehow be less likely to cause cross contamination than something that is relatively unstable like salinity.
       
      Stop being such a jerk.

    3. Re:I'm so shocked... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Where are you getting "hard time grasping why" from? They literally wrote the paper on how it works. They're not having a hard time grasping anything.

      And how in the heck are oceanographers studying plastic particles "the same ilk of scientists who are trying to tell us about climate modelling"?

      For that matter, where are you getting "OPs bigger point from" in the first place? I've seen some contrived efforts to bring up a pet peeve in someone else's conversation, but this... okay, it's actually a pretty typical example of the form.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:I'm so shocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of us hold a PhD in whatever subject we're reading a report on. If the article failed to mention this bit of pertinent information (why is the researcher so shocked? journo didn't catch it because too out of breath while reporting on the state of being shocked?) then it failed to properly inform.

      Blaming the reader for this is maybe not the most useful thing you could've contributed.

      On the subject of vaguely useful ideas, though it would indubitably be better if the stuff didn't get dumped Out There in the first place, what would be the technical feasibility of fishing the stray plastics out of swirling eddies and such? Won't get'em all, but how about a large percentage, how doable is that technically? Not talking geopolitically, we'll save that discussion for another day.

    5. Re:I'm so shocked... by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I'm not blaming the reader for not understanding. I'm blaming them for arguing that the scientist in the article was a moron. If you want to do that, you better not display your own complete ignorance of the subject in your argument.

      For what it's worth, if this AC had bothered to read the article and not just the summary:

      "It was such a surprise to me to find them in such a remote region,” she says. “These particles have come a long way.”

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:I'm so shocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are you getting "hard time grasping why" from? They literally wrote the paper on how it works. They're not having a hard time grasping anything.
       
        But Rachel Obbard, a materials scientist at Dartmouth College, was shocked to find that currents had carried the stuff to the Arctic.
       
      "It was such a surprise to me to find them in such a remote region,” she says. “These particles have come a long way.”

       
      Come again?
       
        And how in the heck are oceanographers studying plastic particles "the same ilk of scientists who are trying to tell us about climate modelling"?
       
      Really? Ok. I see we have a user here who knows nothing about climate models.
       
        For that matter, where are you getting "OPs bigger point from" in the first place? I've seen some contrived efforts to bring up a pet peeve in someone else's conversation, but this... okay, it's actually a pretty typical example of the form.
       
      Just admit that you did some serious jackassing and move along. It's obvious that you're more ignorant than the OP.

    7. Re:I'm so shocked... by Optali · · Score: 1
      Nice, there are quotes!!
      May I ask what they mean? What is the problem that you have against the use of the word "come"?

      Ah, OK, I understand, it's a Secret Code used by the International Pokemon Collectors Clucb to communicate (secretly) with their allies from SPECTRA!

      Aaah, you are absolutely right; climate models are evil, they will cause the ruin of modern society if we don't do anything quick. Last Friday one of these climate models hijacked a plane and devoured all the passenger, alive and if this wasn't enough atrocity he then proceeded to TAX THEM!!! OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    8. Re:I'm so shocked... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Well, I am quite surprised by what kind of utter moron would misinterpret what is written in this phrase.
      It's a literary expression, for fucks sake. It means: "there was stuff that in theory should not be there".
      BUT, what happens is that some people do not understand that an article in a magazine talking about a research paper IS NOT the research paper itself. And they also fail to recall that there was a group of people who was sent to the very ass of the world at temperatures below zero jut to poke holes into the ground and freeze their balls and tits in the process to get these samples and that a lot of other people bored the hell out of themselves just to get the data. AND that all this stuff was published in a paper.
      The problem is that some idiots think that Science is a guy/chick sitting on a chair and figuring out some nice phrases or cool theories, just for the sake of it. That's actually the same type of people who loves to post savvy quotes from Einstein about the Internet.
      Normally in the past they would have no other choice than to shut up and no other public than the few fellows in the local pub or church... but now they have the internet and feel the necessity of letting us know they exist.
      What a waste of biomass and resources with 7 billion of humans on this planet, what a waste.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  14. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. You obviously are a victim of general delusion and monkeying media and general nonsense opinions.
    It is already known that new microbes evolved which can consume plastic and disintegrate it. With time evolution will find the answer. Extrapolation that organisms multiply few times each until they consume earth and eventually - universe is sadly have little resemblance to truth, hovewer mathematically correct it is.

    it is just that being alarmist is so fashionable nowadays

  15. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by captainpanic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Firstly a disclaimer: I am not the historian you asked for (i.e. no expert). But I do have 2 cents to add to this comment.

    I think cities/towns were often built on high ground as a prevention against flooding. People want to live near fresh water for irrigation, but still keep their houses dry.
    Therefore, the main elevation of the town centers is not a giant pile of old trash, but a natural elevation (also known as a "hill"). But it is true that people would discard old items into a canal or river, or just in the mud, and in old cities you will almost always find something if you dig down.

  16. Minute Plastic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Plastics that are still in visible pieces are nuisance, and all oceans have tons and tons and TONS of plastic based flotsam - I worked as a sailor before and even in the middle of a big ocean we saw plastic garbage floating

    But the real danger are those teeny tiny plastic particles

    Most plastic breaks down after prolonged exposure to sunlight, and they kept breaking apart as time goes by, until they became teeny tiny plastic (polymer) particles which inevitably end up in the food-chain (sea creatures - little fishes - bigger fishes - entrees in restaurants - people's stomach) and sooner and later all of us start eating food containing plastic particles

    Yes, even those so-called bio-degradable plastics only degrade until they become teeny tiny polymer particles, and then stop degrading

    What kind of problem will those plastic particles do to our health ? Anybody knows ?

  17. I can't view the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on this article in classic mode, even if i click the classic version return link above.

    And what's with all the white space? Doesn't the designer like reading or information density, or does he/she just really enjoy looking at empty white spaces all day?

    http://halgatewood.com/thisisawebsite/

  18. it cannot be a great quantity of plastic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the old ice which we are losing by melting are very very old ice. The ice where the plastic bit could be are surface ice near the coast and year & decade young ice. And those are cyclic so trap & release should be a constant quantity.

    1. Re:it cannot be a great quantity of plastic by Truth_Quark · · Score: 2

      The current that comes up past Europe from the Atlantic sinks and flows back beneath the surface. Plastic that floats will accumulate at the surface around Greenland, and may spread around the Arctic Ocean.

  19. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

    It is already known that new microbes evolved which can consume plastic and disintegrate it

    While it is known that scientists have found microbes in landfill sites and plastic floatsam in the sea that can consume / digest plastics, it is still an unknown whether those microbes could break down the many types of toxin that are embedded inside the plastics, such as phthalates, or merely pass the toxins intact, on to the next higher level organism on the food chain

    http://www.nature.com/news/201...

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  20. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    I recall reading somewhere - and I hope a historian can come along and correct this - that most modern settlements are at a significant elevation because they're on top of the middens and trash of all the previous settlers on that site. If we actually dug out the areas we currently stand on, we'd find all sorts of interesting trash.

    Chicago is about 3' higher than it's supposed to be and juts out into the lake quite a ways because it's built on top the great fire of 1871. There are still a few buildings left from before the fire that sit significantly bellow street level. They look odd when driving through the area.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

  21. You have misunderstood entirely by dbIII · · Score: 1

    It's amazement that it is happening so much instead of amazement that it is happening at all. That is the difference between an observer getting a better quantitative idea and a "moron".

  22. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Sockatume · · Score: 1

    True, but the effect I was thinking of was more conspicuously artificial.

    --
    No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  23. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought global warming made the ice melt, not grow.

    1. Re:How? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Seasons. Every year the ice sheets grow and shrink.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  24. I'm more worried about pollution than climate by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

    It is stuff like this that bums me out, not the fact that we are so young on this planet that we are surprised that climate isn't stable.

    1. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What in the World do you think is causing AGW? Pixie dust?

      Unfortunately, most people do not understand the fact that we humans are art of this planet and since there are BILLIONS of us, we are having a horrible effect on this planets ecosystem.

      People will deny that it's possible because the planet is so big and old and survived "worse" but they fail to remember that many species DID NOT survive what the Earth has gone through.

      AND a tinny tiny bacteria are able to take out a human. Just like tinny tiny humans can take out a planet.

      When you consider all these "little" insults we put upon the environment, we humans are one of the most destructive things that has ever happened to this planet.

    2. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why should we be exempt from this extinction process?

      If our presence here is so injurious and upsetting the current balance then the world will go through another extinction and cull us if not erliminate us completely. no problem. life will go on. evolution will refill the niches. I have no fear of a natural extinction event or even a targeted thing like a pandemic, but a natural pandemic.

      the thing that concerns me is a targeted pandemic created by man to cull man because that will include a preperatory step of selectively immunizing those in power who think they deserve to live. the natural pandemic would cut through all classes, stations, races, taking its fair share everywhere.

    3. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I like tinny humans. Helps to solder them together better.

    4. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 2

      We aren't even nearly as warm as we've been in the past via the flora and fauna record and we've stalled for the past 6 years, actually cooled the last couple of years, which no models predicted. It's theory, not fact because there are holes that can't be explained in the theory. Societies have grown and collapsed due to climate change in the past so what we need to focus on is dealing with climate variation. Check out the snow pack in the Colorado Rockies right now, runoff hasn't even taken off yet due to cold and snow, it is just starting to build now, in late May. Arapahoe Basin ski area is still open with a 73" base. It stays open until early May through early June usually but might even make it to July 4th this year like it did in 2011 when the base was in the 90" range in May. So twice in four years the snow pack is well above median and average.

    5. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      Extinction comes from not being able to adapt to change, and we need to focus on that. We can't stop the change.

    6. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by ideonexus · · Score: 1

      "...we've stalled for the past 6 years, actually cooled the last couple of years..."

      I realize there's a legitimate debate over how many years constitutes which, but I think you fall in the category of people confusing weather and climate. I remember back in 2008 when AGW-skeptics said there had been a decade of global cooling by using 1998, the warmest year on record, as their baseline. Then increasingly warmer years eliminated that talking point. Now you are saying it's cooled the past couple of years, so you must be using 2010 as your baseline, which is the current warmest year on record.

      If the predicted El Nino manifests this summer and fall, it might make 2015 an unusually warm year. So I guess in 2016 or 2017 I should expect to hear again about how the Earth has actually been cooling the past few years. A more intellectually honest way to look at climate is to observe the decade by decade warming trend.

      --
      i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
    7. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take the Vostok ice core that lines up nicely with our pitiful 130 years of observations. A cooling is coming, we are nearing the inflection point of a warming period.

      http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/reports/UpdateReport.html;jsessionid=6Xh9-SSAxz0j0RJ5oJEh-WO-?report=Colorado&format=SNOTEL+Snowpack+Update+Report

      I'm not a republican/fundie/denier, I have a BS and took the calc/chem/physics triad in school. I just am not compelled that this warming is anthropogenic. Given that 1/4 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last decade with no corresponding acceleration of warming that would be predicted, and even a leveling off, I think models aren't correct.

    8. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Given that 1/4 of all CO2 emissions have happened in the last decade with no corresponding acceleration of warming that would be predicted, and even a leveling off, I think models aren't correct.

      The IPCC has predicted warming at a rate of 0.15C and 0.3C per decade ever since their first report in 1990, and that is exactly what we have observed:

      "Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections." - http://www.ipcc.ch/publication...

      So temperatures have risen, and continue to rise, exactly as much as we would have expected. Although the temperature wobbles about the mean, (and if you pick small enough intervals the natural oscillations can swamp the long term signal), the trend has not changed and remains above 0.2C/decade since 1970: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

    9. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by cusco · · Score: 1

      Why do conservatives have such a difficult time understanding the difference between weather and climate? Oh, that's right, short-term limited-complexity thinking is endemic in that mindset, changes that take decades or centuries to develop are unfathomable, and local effects are somehow supposed to be able to be extrapolated to cover the entire planet. Locally, Mount Baker and Mount Rainier have been trading world record snowfall levels, and the cons think it disproves global warming. Climatologists and meteorologists are quite aware it's actually because the warmer ocean evaporates more water causing more precipitation.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    10. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      I think we are at an inflection point. So it is your thesis that higher humidity has led to higher snow packs in the Colorado river basin and temperature has no effect on that? Why is the runoff just staring now? Go to http://lakepowell.water-data.c... and see that due to the cool spring runoff is just starting and the lake is 2-4 degrees cooler than it usually is this time of year. I suppose higher humidty caused the long winter in the North Eastern US this winter as well? It caused the unusually cool weather in the south? High humdity from global warming made it a cooler than normal winter?

    11. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by cusco · · Score: 1

      **Sigh**

      You really have no concept of the difference between climate and weather, do you? If you want to use the Rockies as your example then look at the very old photos of Glacier National Park, and then look at pictures taken from the same viewpoint today. Your high snow pack is weather, the receding glaciers are climate. It's depressing to look at my photos of the Cordillera Blanca that I took in 1987 and images of the same peaks today. Even then I was late, photos in the museum from half a century before showed both sides of the Rio Santa valley covered with glaciers, only the eastern side still had white peaks then.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    12. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      You couldn't address any points could you? Did you know before photographs existed we have evidence of glaciers covering the northern US? Due to climate change glaciers advanced and retreated. Our current observations line up nicely with the Vostok ice core. You know that during the little ice age in Europe glaciers advanced and then retreated after it warmed? Tell me about the humidity and it making winters colder again.

    13. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by cusco · · Score: 1

      What point? Where you claim that I said temperature has no effect on snow packs? Or the one where you claim that I said humidity is the only factor in local weather? No, I didn't bother to "address" them, they're such fraudulent strawmen that it's not worth the effort. Yes, I'm quite aware of the prehistoric glaciers, go look up Milankovich Cycles. Oh, and go ask an Australian what they thought of the weather the last six months.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    14. Re:I'm more worried about pollution than climate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand weather and climate just fine and I know that the last 15 years haven't gone as predicted and several of the last few winters have been very harsh. Ask the people of the Sahara what they've thought of the last couple thousand years.

  25. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, cities were often built on hills etc, especially churches in medieval times (god being the highest and providing shelter in case of floods), but in really ancient cities old relics are always some part underground. This is noticeable if you travel through southern europe and find that the floor of roman buildings was some feet (6-8 in some cases) below modern street level. In the middle east and surrounding areas there are/were cities built on the same point for thousands of years, adding quite a bit to the elevation. If you see a place named "Tell ..." or "... Tepe" it's (usually) such a hill by settlement.

  26. Wonder how it got there ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would all of this end up in Arctic Ice ? And might this help explain the melting of the ice more so than global warming

    1. Re:Wonder how it got there ? by Layzej · · Score: 1

      And might this help explain the melting of the ice more so than global warming

      Probably not unless the plastics are dark. If they are dark they will absorb solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected. Black carbon for example can accelerate ice loss: http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...

      The study, in Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences (Keegan et al. 2014) finds that black carbon from wildfires facilitated widespread Greenland ice sheet surface melting in just two years since the end of the 19th century: 1889 and 2012. They argue convincingly that not just warm temperatures, but the positive feedback with black carbon and surface solar heating can push the surface energy balance into net heating and ice melt. Further, the likelihood for future increases in air temperature and wildfire boosts the probability of high altitude former “dry snow area” surface melting by end of century to every few years, if not even more frequently, they conclude.

      Arctic ice loss is occurring much faster than was anticipated by climate models, so it is likely that there are other factors at play.

  27. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather, it would present a mystery and a quandry...

    A sophisticated engineering and manufacturing society without the intelligence to throw out the trash properly?

    Hopefully, these imaginary visitors will have a plastic based life/society/economy and think they have found Treasure Island!

  28. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by invid · · Score: 1

    Great book.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  29. George Carlin by invid · · Score: 1

    Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

    ~George Carlin

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
    1. Re:George Carlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      george carlin was a deep thinker. we needed him and didn't deserve him at the same time.

    2. Re:George Carlin by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      Full Carlin quote here... http://www.goodreads.com/quote...

  30. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes.
    This, actually, is common knowledge.
    Some places are built on previous garbage dumps--with enough of covering material that the garbage dump was not apparent. This is just the same as things being built on top of graves, graveyards, hazardous places and other things.
    Some places that are existing partially cover garbage dumps. That is, "modern" cities and places may be larger than the original.

    Without this happening, we would lose a lot of horror stories so it isn't a bad thing necessarily. (LOL!)

  31. Shocking: That the scientist was so ignorant by fygment · · Score: 1

    Really ... a "scientist" to whom it never occured that the ocean's currents (and winds) might carry the stuff to the Antarctic? The presence of the plastic was the least surprising part of the article. BTW, it's also in the air and likely at high altitude, if anyone cares to look. Don't know that for sure but it would simply make sense. Also, look for it at the very bottom of the ocean; no it didn't sink, it was carried there by currents.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Shocking: That the scientist was so ignorant by cusco · · Score: 1

      The amount of it is surprising, as the Arctic (not Antarctic) ocean is fairly cut off from the rest of the oceanic circulation patterns. BTW, currents mostly stay in horizontal bands separated by different temperature and salinity gradients, there is very little vertical circulation (few exceptions, like the Humbolt Current, but that's the general rule). Plastic in the benthic depths would pretty much have to be carried there by the sinking of near-surface organisms.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  32. Sensationalism at it's finest... by clonehappy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wait...as it melts?? It melts every year, then freezes again. It's not like some barrage of plastic that's been sequestered in ice for billions of years is suddenly going to be dumped into the ocean because of the Arctic sea ice "melting", a thinly veiled reference to global warming as if the melting isn't happening every summer. And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!

    As an aside, what happened to Slashdot? What happened to our ability to critically think in general? Crap like this should never see the light of day on the main page, it's almost as if we're just expected to consume whatever the headline is alluding to, truth be damned, and subsequently have the proper level of outrage as is determined by the +5 comments. What happened to active discourse, agreeing to disagree, and civility even amongst people with different ideologies? Every day, I read more and more comments along the lines of "If you disagree with me, you should be executed." It makes me really, really sad and angry at the same time that we've been effectively reduced to the mental capacity of neanderthals when it comes to our science/religion of choice (and really, what's the difference anymore?)

    1. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would be really shocking is to see an environmental headline that isn't "Worse then we previously thought". What could be worse than Michael Mann's runaway hockey-stick of doom? We shouldn't even have ice in the arctic in summer at this point in time according to Mann, Gore and Hansen.

    2. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be shocking to see a headline use "then" when it should use "than".

      Oh wait, that's not so shocking after all because of our failure of an education system.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't even have ice in the arctic in summer at this point in time according to Mann, Gore and Hansen.

      Northern summer sea ice volume has dropped 60% over the past 35 years.

      But I wonder if you have misinterpreted projections of Mann and Hansen.

      I notice Mann was an author on a paper about the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but I can't find the one about the Arctic Ice that your refer to. Do you have a citation?

    4. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a homo.

    5. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did the Vikings settle Greenland? Was it because a once frozen ocean stayed ice free so that they could make regular trips? Tell me about the last 6 years. When you say something like observed conditions, how much of the earths history do those "observed" conditions cover. Do Flora and Fauna records bear out periods warmer and colder than now? Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?

    6. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap like this shouldn't be on the front page because you disagree with it. Nice argument.

    7. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 2

      Wait...as it melts?? It melts every year, then freezes again. It's not like some barrage of plastic that's been sequestered in ice for billions of years is suddenly going to be dumped into the ocean because of the Arctic sea ice "melting", a thinly veiled reference to global warming as if the melting isn't happening every summer. And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!

      The loss of the Northern Summer Sea Ice will change ocean dynamics. The released plastic could make its way to other oceans.

    8. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an aside, what happened to Slashdot?

      Slashdot has been like this for a very long time. Sensational headlines that are outright false. Blurbs full of bias and exaggeration. Sadly, the comments are going down hill and they were the real reason to come here.

    9. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      How did the Vikings settle Greenland?

      By longboat, I believe.

      Was it because a once frozen ocean stayed ice free so that they could make regular trips?

      I think Eric the Red's exile was the primary factor that set the timing.

      Tell me about the last 6 years.

      In Greenland? It's been losing Ice Sheet Mass, because of increased glacial flow outstripping increased precipitation. Recent findings suggest that the ice sheet is much more vulnerable to ocean warming that previously thought.

      When you say something like observed conditions, how much of the earths history do those "observed" conditions cover.

      It depends on context. Can you point out which time I said "something like observed conditions" that you are referring to? Sometimes observations of ice go back nearly a million years, by ice core histories. Some Ice observations go back to 1978, the satellite histories.

      Do Flora and Fauna records bear out periods warmer and colder than now?

      Certainly colder. Warmer is uncertain globally within the past couple or few million years. Central Greenland regionally has probably been warming in the past few hundred years, judging from Ice cores.

      Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?

      No. Global warming is what happens when you warm the globe. It's not a theory. The relevant theories are probably optics and thermodynamics. There are no observations that suggest the globe isn't currently warming. Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere measurements, and sea level measurements are probably the most irrefutable signs that the globe is warming, as a globe. But surface temperature measurements are also strongly indicative.

    10. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did the Vikings settle Greenland?

      By longboat, I believe.

      Hilarious.

      Was it because a once frozen ocean stayed ice free so that they could make regular trips?

      I think Eric the Red's exile was the primary factor that set the timing.

      That's disingenuous. The colonies failed once the ocean froze over again.

      Tell me about the last 6 years.

      In Greenland? It's been losing Ice Sheet Mass, because of increased glacial flow outstripping increased precipitation. Recent findings suggest that the ice sheet is much more vulnerable to ocean warming that previously thought.

      When you say something like observed conditions, how much of the earths history do those "observed" conditions cover.

      It depends on context. Can you point out which time I said "something like observed conditions" that you are referring to? Sometimes observations of ice go back nearly a million years, by ice core histories. Some Ice observations go back to 1978, the satellite histories.

      I didn't say you did, was waiting for it. Our recent observations amount to jack in the long history of the earth. The Vostok ice core, which actually does a good job of matching up with observed conditions means more to me than 30 years of satellite images.

      Do Flora and Fauna records bear out periods warmer and colder than now?

      Certainly colder. Warmer is uncertain globally within the past couple or few million years. Central Greenland regionally has probably been warming in the past few hundred years, judging from Ice cores.

      Warmer too, for instance forests growing faster in northern climes in the past and plant life that can't grow there right now existing in the past.

      Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?

      No. Global warming is what happens when you warm the globe. It's not a theory.

      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.

    11. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Is global warming a theory due to the fact that it has facets that fly against observations?

      I think you have the definition of theory exactly wrong. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.

      Yes. Yes it is.

    12. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia??? Turn in your card! What do you think the difference between theory and fact are?

    13. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      That's disingenuous. The colonies failed once the ocean froze over again.

      More related to the Vikings having depleted the soil fertility, I suspect. But regional climate change may have played a part.

      Our recent observations amount to jack in the long history of the earth.

      Right, but the current climate change affects the planet since the industrial revolution, not since the history of the earth.

      Warmer too, for instance forests growing faster in northern climes in the past and plant life that can't grow there right now existing in the past.

      It's possible regionally. Where are you talking about? Globally we're probably warming than any time since the peak of the interglacial before last one, and possibly all times in the last 2-5 million years.

      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a theory.

      No. Theories get lots of hits on google scholar, because scientists have written about them. Quantum Field Theory is a Theory. It gets nearly half a million hits on google scholar.

      Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory is not. It gets less than 100 hits, mostly denialist writings of no scientific note.

      The basic theory that explains Anthropogenic Global Warming is optics, which explains how greenhouse gasses cause the greenhouse effect.

    14. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twenty five percent of human CO2 emissions have been in the past decade and yet no corresponding percentage of warming. Climate is always regional, that is why droughts come and go and areas see warming and cooling. Time is wasted on trying to pretend we can modify things, spending time on overcoming changes is better spent. I'd rather all the plastic be pulled from the sea or all the mercury pulllled out of it then worry about CO2. I'd worry about the real damage to the planet.

    15. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      Twenty five percent of human CO2 emissions have been in the past decade and yet no corresponding percentage of warming.

      That's a lot. Whose figures are you quoting?

      The warming from an increase in CO2 takes 25-50 years for 60% of it to have occurred.

      You need to look at the coming 30-40 years for the warming corresponding to emissions in the last decade.

      Climate is always regional, that is why droughts come and go and areas see warming and cooling.

      There is also global climate. Such as the current warming.

      Time is wasted on trying to pretend we can modify things, spending time on overcoming changes is better spent.

      No. The economic analysis shows that it is cheaper to reduce emissions.

      I'd rather all the plastic be pulled from the sea or all the mercury pulllled out of it then worry about CO2.

      Reducing emissions is possible and positive. You should pursue pipe dreams to if you want. That's not mutually exclusive.

      I'd worry about the real damage to the planet.

      Drop in biodiversity is real damage to the planet. Climate change and sea level rise is real damage to humanity.

    16. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think biodiversity and climate haven't changed radically in the last 4.5 billion years? You think the earth is static state? Have sea levels fallen and risen before?

      Forbes is using NOAAs data.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/03/06/as-carbon-dioxide-levels-continue-to-rise-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/

      The economist reported the 25% number

      As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

    17. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      How your post was modded insightful is anybodies guess, and I think the answer lies in what you say, about the "mental capacity of neanderthals".

      To begin with, did you RTFA?
      It doesn't appear that you did.

      The surprising findings from the research was that the arctic sea ice is a collector of sorts for the unfathomably large amount of plastic spewed into the oceans by man and his industrial offal. The amount of plastic found was "three orders of magnitude larger than some counts of plastic particles in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch" Maybe that isn't interesting enough for you, but it is for me.

      Also from the article:
      "Plastic is chemically inert. But the plastic can absorb organic pollutants in high concentrations, says Mark Browne, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Browne has performed laboratory experiments with marine organisms showing not only how the microplastics can be retained in tissues, but also how pollutants might be released upon ingestion. "

      If any sort of +5 outrage should be generated by the research and its findings, its from the fact that mankind has and is continuing to pollute and degrade it's own biosphere.

      Hello? Anybody in there?

      "Thinly veiled reference to global warming"?
      Wake up yo.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    18. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      You think biodiversity and climate haven't changed radically in the last 4.5 billion years? You think the earth is static state? Have sea levels fallen and risen before?

      No, I think that the current warming is primarily caused by human activity, and that this is putting extinction pressure on great swathes of a wide range of ecosystems, is responsible for the observed acceleration in sea level rise.

      Forbes is using NOAAs data.

      They're not understanding that the increase in CO2 is responded to my a warming over the following decades though. Scientific sources are better, and Forbes' opinion pieces are appallingly unscientific when it comes to climate change.

      The economist reported the 25% number

      So they did. A well researched and intellectual publication. Not scientific as such, but educated. It gets a pass.

      Yet, still no warming during that time

      Not quite true. There has been warming.

      That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

      Not even close to correct. Completely wrong. Every time you decompose global warming into the response to natural and anthropogenic forcing it looks something like this. Most or all of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Every time you look at what is applying radiative forcing it looks like this. Anthropogenic forcing dominates, and of the anthropogenic forcings, CO2 forcing is the largest part.

      There is no question in the scientific literature that most of the current warming is likely anthropogenic. About 0% of scientific organisations and 0% of scholarly papers refute this fact. We know it better than we know an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.

    19. Re:Sensationalism at it's finest... by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      The amount of plastic found was "three orders of magnitude larger than some counts of plastic particles in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch" Maybe that isn't interesting enough for you, but it is for me.

      Did you RTFA? It also says that the researcher used a 0.22 micron filter to catch the particles out of the melted sea ice, and a 333 micron filter to catch particles out of the water from the garbage patch. Do you know how many orders of magnitude smaller that filter is? And how many orders of magnitude more crap that filter will catch?? Or was it more convenient for you to not mention that fact?
       
      Again, this is common sense passed off as sensationalist bullshit trying to cause some alarm as if it's something we didn't already know. If you dump shit in the ocean, it pollutes the whole fucking thing. Some of that shit travels up to the Arctic where it's cold as fuck and freezes in the ice in the winter. Then, in the summer when it gets warmer, some of that shit thaws and is released back into the ocean. Gee, glad they told us that

      I read the article and am just saying that while it might be a mildly interesting read, it really isn't anything as jaw-dropping or earth-shattering or outrageous as the headlines would lead us to believe, like most every article posted on here these days. And as for the "Thinly veiled reference to global warming", yes, I stand by what I said. Arctic sea ice freezes and thaws in a cycle every year. Whatever froze into that ice was already in the water recently, and therefore this is not some impending doom waiting to be released on the oceans when the warm period comes and that sea ice thaws. If we found a way to somehow pollute the land-based ice caps and they were actually thawing and releasing the pollutants, then this would be a story.

      As it stands, still sensationalist garbage that didn't deserve a place on the front page of slashdot.

  33. mislabeled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do they say "humans" when they mean MANUFACTURERS ?

    I didn't make the plastic that is being found. Neither did anyone else visiting this website. We need to find the company who is making this plastic and fine them a couple trillion dollars.

    1. Re:mislabeled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CONSUMERS you mean? they drive the demand and they vote in the laws that allow this to happen. (this being a global issue, the voting part ofcourse depends on the local laws)

  34. Where did you get that fact from? by crovira · · Score: 2

    Most of the current sea ice is less than 10 years old is suspiciously in need of references.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:Where did you get that fact from? by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      Zook is right about that. Older sea ice has been decimated in the last decade.
      The evidence is that his imagination regarding plastic trapped in the sea ice is lacking, but he's right about the age of Arctic sea ice.

    2. Re:Where did you get that fact from? by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      There could still be a lot of plastic in the Arctic of course. Some currents are more likely to collect the plastic in one area, and it's plausible something like that is happening in the Arctic. But adding the "trapped in ice" doesn't really make sense, if there's a constant exchange between water and ice, and each having the same concentration of plastic.

    3. Re:Where did you get that fact from? by Truth_Quark · · Score: 1

      But adding the "trapped in ice" doesn't really make sense, if there's a constant exchange between water and ice, and each having the same concentration of plastic.

      The article looks at ice cores containing plastic, so "trapped in ice" is what they found.

      They don't speculate on mechanism, but bits of plastic are lighter than ice and larger than water molecules. It's plausible that they would have a tendency to remain right against the underside of the sea ice if they are in the water, and would get caught up early in the freeze. It's also plausible that they would be caught in the ice by one or both ends when the saltwater rivulets form, and not tend to flush into the sea in the same proportion as the water, just because the water is smaller. And it's even plausible that they would work their way up into the ice rather than down if a freshwater bubble comes passing though (unless it is flowing fast), or if they find themselves melted into from above by fresh meltwater.

      I don't find it implausible that the constant exchange between water and ice favours uptake of the plastic into the ice.

  35. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually most of the buildings and homes you see below street level, are due to the way the sewer systems were created and NOT due to the fire.
    See: Raising of Chicago

  36. Replace 'plastic' with 'anyword you want' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So? You can replace the word 'plastic' with any material known to man and the same statement is true. What is your point other than trying to make a false case against humanity and drive more foolish people to waste their time and effort on some dimwitted mission that has no value.

    Get a life loser.

  37. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by cusco · · Score: 1

    When we were in Rome a few years ago there was a ruin undergoing excavation in the middle of the city. You could walk over to the edge of the excavation and look down about 7 or 8 meters to where the work was being done, since the subsequent 20 centuries of occupation had added that much elevation. There are places like the Parthenon which have been in continuous use and are in a slight dip in the terrain because trash was not allowed to accumulate there. IIRC they had to stop a planned subway expansion because the tunneling kept running into archeological sites.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  38. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

    I gotta say, are we talking about the same Parthenon? The one built at the top of a hill overlooking Athens as pretty nearly the sole structure on the hilltop?

    It doesn't precisely show the elevations, but:

    https://maps.google.com/maps?o...

    is one view, or perhaps this will do better:

    http://www.greatbuildings.com/...

    As you can see, it is pretty much on top of a mesa. So I'm not sure where your "slight dip in the terrain" could possibly be.

    I only point this out not because your argument is implausible in general, but your specific example is one of my favorite places on Earth and although I've only been fortunate enough to visit it in person twice in my lifetime (so far) I remember the walk up from Athens proper quite well, including stopping in some of the many small taverns that are along the trek for octopus and retsina.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  39. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, he said he was in Rome when he saw it, so I think you are probably not talking about the same Parthenon, as the one he was talking about is imaginary.

  40. Re:Maybe RTFA? by Layzej · · Score: 1

    And if it was created in 2012, then gets released, then a little bit freezes in the ice next year...it doesn't sound like this is even a story!

    It does sound like it is accumulating year over year, otherwise how do you explain the "abundances of hundreds of particles per cubic meter. That’s three orders of magnitude larger than some counts of plastic particles in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch." - http://news.sciencemag.org/ear...

  41. (oblig.) One Word by cstacy · · Score: 1

    "Plastic."

    1. Re:(oblig.) One Word by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      It's actually "Plastics." I don't know where this quote came from, other than I have heard it many many times playing Civilization V, but it's definitely in the plural.

  42. Three orders of magnitude? Meh! by Layzej · · Score: 1

    The author is a materials scientist, not an oceanographer. So the AC is skeptical of climate modelers because a materials scientist found a concentration of plastic frozen in the arctic that is three orders of magnitude larger than found in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which is in fact a shocking find!). Any excuse to deny science.

  43. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by cusco · · Score: 1

    My bad, I meant Pantheon in Rome. Brain burp.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  44. But ... but ... by hduff · · Score: 1

    This must be ancient alien plastic.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  45. less people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, if there's less people, there's less of all of this.

  46. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Optali · · Score: 1

    Well the difference is that this "thrash" was mostly broken bricks and dirt (as in mud) filling the space occupied by houses. Thrash was disposed for centuries in holes , sometimes to fill in old and dry wells. Organic stuff broke apart easily so that even the thrash of these groves isn't more than a few shards of ceramics and minute pieces of bones. But we are not talking about the type of stuff we have today like plastics.

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  47. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Optali · · Score: 1

    The change in elevation is due to two causes: A) when people in the past wanted to build a new hose they tore down the old and used it to fill the foundations. B) The river PO periodically flooded Rome and remember that big parts of the city were abandoned for many centuries. I don't know how you come to the idea that humans may let dirt and mud accumulate in their houses and buildings. AFAIK the Romans also new how to use a broom, don't you agree?

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  48. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Optali · · Score: 1
    The Pantheon?

    Well, this one is not on a hill (AFAIK) but neither is in underground. It's still standing very nicely: Pantheon
    I guess it was "Luigi's Pizza Emporium" :)

    --
    -- 29A the number of the Beast
  49. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by cusco · · Score: 1

    Sure, but on the other hand municipal trash removal ceased for centuries at a time. No one living more than a block from the river is going to haul their trash any further than the abandoned lot down the street if they don't have to. And motor vehicles have only been around for a little more than a century, do you have any idea how much waste horses produce? In some cities of Europe there is a paved street, a meter or more of accumulation, another paved street, more accumulation, and the current modern street, the homes on the street have been altered (including being torn down and used for fill, as you correctly point out) to accommodate the changed street level.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  50. Re:It didn't take long to leave our mark in the se by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ancient cities were paved at best by the middle ages with cobble stones trash was literally tossed into the street so if it didnt rot it formed into the soil so any ancient city is going to have layers of its past and over time the city grows over its past