Small pieces of plastic (sizes less than 5mm), dubbed microplastics, have been found all over the world, particularly in the great garbage patches associated with major ocean gyres. One of the puzzling things about the microplastic composition of these garbage patches is that, despite the enormous increase in production of plastics and other man-made materials over the past decades, the microplastic abundance has not changed over the time they have been monitored. This suggests that there are large sinks where these particles disappear.
Obbard et al. report in the most recent issue of the open-access journal Earth's Future that Arctic ice is one of these sinks. Ice core sampling has shown the concentration of microplastics encapsulated in the ice is at least two orders of magnitude higher than that observed in the garbage patches. Given the expected melt rate of the ice, this means a great deal of trapped plastic will be released back into the oceans.
Related Stories
BBC News reports that "ice cores were gathered from five regions throughout the Arctic Ocean in the spring of 2014 and summer of 2015" and the researchers "found concentrations of over 12,000 particles per litre of sea ice - which is two to three times higher than" than they had seen previously.
Arctic sea ice is an important temporal sink and means of transport for microplastic
orcid.org/0000-0003-1531-1664
Previously: Microplastics in Arctic Ice
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:46AM
If these microplastics are largely ending up in the "sinks", why would they cease to be concentrated at those points just because the ice has melted? If anything it sounds like it would make cleanup easier, assuming that is even worth doing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @07:26AM
No-one is saying that the microplastics will cease going to these places. What they are saying is that the stockpile of microplastics currently trapped in arctic ice is being released back into the ocean, causing a spike in concentration and will probably cause more problems for the wildlife.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday May 22 2014, @08:36AM
(Score: 0, Troll) by Dunbal on Thursday May 22 2014, @08:55AM
Someone is looking at the melting ice saying "z0mg" global warming is going to kill us through plastic while ignoring the fact that if there is plastic in the ice to begin with that means that new ice is being formed...
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @11:57AM
Absolutely! Stupid science guys! They're a bunch of punks. Them and their fancy degrees can't hold a candle to your withering "science" analysis.
Hey, I know, how about letting someone hit you with a fucking clue-by-four first before you ramble off and start sounding like the ignorant dumbass that you are. You don't understand the seasonal variability of the polar ice cycle? No problem. However, don't start trying to sound like someone who has a fucking clue. Find yourself a decent source [skepticalscience.com] that talks about the science and its criticisms instead of getting all your learning from some "expert" on talk radio.
(Score: 0) by Dunbal on Thursday May 22 2014, @12:38PM
Feeling better now? It's always good to let out a little anger by anonymously posting scathing replies is it not? Of course here's the rub: I don't know you, but you certainly don't know me. But fine, I'll let you enjoy your fantasy of addressing some vulgar member of the rabble. Hey man wen is game of trones on?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @02:30PM
True, I don't know you, but your comments reveal your general science knowledge, or lack thereof. Again, there's no shame in not understanding a topic, and it can be fun learning something new, but don't try to sound like you understand something when you don't.
Personally, I'm concerned about rapid global cooling. I decided yesterday to start tracking temperatures outside my house and from about noon to midnight the temperature dropped by about 15 degrees F. That means in about three days we'll have polar winter type of temperatures, but those stupid Ph.D. types with their fancy weather models tell me that it will be in the 80's in three days. Jackasses. I'm going to plot up my measurements and show those idiots how stupid they are.
(Score: 1) by arulatas on Thursday May 22 2014, @01:26PM
The good thing is that plastics insulate. So that will mean that the ice will stay cooler longer and less ice will melt.
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday May 22 2014, @04:02PM
Quick, dump more plastics in the ocean! Eventually, we'll get pykrete-like icebergs, and can resurrect project habakkuk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @09:48AM
Try breathing in an atmosphere filled with microscopic plastic particles. Doesn't sound too healthy? Welcome to a modern fish's life.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday May 22 2014, @09:09PM
(Score: 3) by hubie on Thursday May 22 2014, @11:26AM
The overall issue is that microplastics are accumulating all over the world, including regions where there are no people (Pacific gyre and the arctic). The bottom parts of the food chain are affected by the microplastics, and they also harbor bacteria. Current research is looking into what the effects of these plastics are, particularly given that they are expected to increase in concentration exponentially (because plastics production has roughly increased exponentially). Although the long-term effects on the marine ecosystem is under study, it is generally accepted that it is a bad idea to mess up the lower rungs of the food chain.
The interesting parts of this paper are that a very large microplastics sink has been identified, and that large quantities are accumulating in the arctic ice. It would now be interesting to look in the Antarctic ice. Other interesting parts of the paper talk about the composition of particles, such as Rayon fibers that would come from runoff from washing machines. People generally don't think beyond their local water treatment plant, but (to me, at least) I find it interesting that fibers from my clothing can end up embedded in Arctic ice.
(Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Thursday May 22 2014, @11:55PM
This story is making the rounds right now ... but I can't find where I heard it. I did find a link at NPR [npr.org] talking about the impact on the Great Lakes from last December. Wish I could find the recent story, though, it also covered impacts on the East coast as well as the Great Lakes.
Cheers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @10:38AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zafiro17 on Thursday May 22 2014, @01:53PM
Ha ha - very astute, A/C. This remains a sad story - seems like the Arctic is bearing the brunt of all our stupidity in ways we haven't even to date understood, much less quantified. And as for (polar) bears, your kids may as well give up ever seeing one, as they'll likely be extinct in the next ten years. Too bad. How come self-destructing species like ours get to spend so long at the top of the food chain with no consequences?
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Entropy on Thursday May 22 2014, @03:13PM
They keep talking about expected melt rate, ie..more global warming FUD. There's a unusual plastic sink in the form of it being frozen in arctic ice? Sounds like arctic ice is expanding..not contracting.
Research vessel sent to measure arctic ice depletion? Stuck in the ice. It's rescue? Stuck in the ice. Why? Gee..there's a lot more arctic ice than we expected. The conclusion? More ice, not less. (google: trapped research vessel)
In short.. I'm not really scared about all the arctic ice suddenly melting due to the evil scary global warming the news keeps talking about.
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday May 22 2014, @04:01PM
You have to be kidding. Please tell me I missed the sarcasm since your post is woefully filled with nothingness. Just for shits and giggles I did google trapped research vessel and OMG...you were so off it wasn't funny. I feel like you gave a gun to someone and said, "point it at me and pull the trigger. It wont hurt me".
I remember that news item. [theguardian.com]
1 - It was in the Antarctic
2 - It was weather related, not climate (says so in the article)
3 - Because of shifting winds, the rescue vessels also got trapped, though soon after all vessels get released because ZOMG Global Warming....no, because the winds changed.
You really are scared of something. Knowledge, truth, intelligence perhaps. Be all means ignore the reality going on around you, buy beach property in florida, but please please please get out of the way of people who truly care about their planet.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday May 22 2014, @05:23PM
Forget about global warming for a minute, GP indeed has a point: if icecaps are melting you can't have a sink there, you'd have at most seasonal oscillations.
And BTW, I don't question the veracity of the story, but, vessels trapped by the wind? what kind of engine do those antarctic vessels have, or what kind of winds are down there?
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Thursday May 22 2014, @07:05PM
There are seasonal oscillations then there is what is going on now [theguardian.com]. Instead of us trying to hold on to the notion that nothing is wrong, let's look at this from the position that something *is* going on and what can we do to mitigate the worst of it without blowing up our economies.
There is money to be made in alternative energies, we just cling to our fossil fuels out of inertia and greed. Both will kill too many of us in the eventual crash if we don't change course. Maybe no you and I, but you like to play with lives a generation or two in the future. That does make me feel like a good person.
To be clear, the vessels were trapped by ice, ice that was driven by wind to the point where it bunched up and held the ships in place. Read up on the Shackleton Expedition to get another example of how ships can be trapped by ice, driven by wind and tide. The issue is not the size of the ship or the engines, the issue is that the ice floes can get quite thick, so much that even ice breakers cannot bust through. If the ships are held long enough and the pressure is not relieved their hulls can be compromised (again, see Shackleton story. There is even early video).
When this planet had even half the total population the potential for a global collapse of economies and ecologies was likely, but there was more separation between countries so that a fluctuation in South America may not effect Europe of North America. Looking at the population growth [wikipedia.org] it is hard not to see a correlation between the almost explosive growth of humanity and the increase in global temperatures and carbon emissions. Carlin made his point that the Planet will survive, we haven't figure out a way to blow it up yet, but we may be screwed it we continue on this trend. Now the world is so much more interconnected in economies, ecologies, and goods that if a place like California goes dry due to the changes in climate, we lose a good portion of certain crops. Same in Brazil and coffee. Rising food prices puts pressure on struggle populations that could result in famine wars. Look a Syria and ask, is that what we want to see in the US down the road?
Even if everything was status quo for the moment, I see no reason, once we learn how bad we are shitting in our own house, to start to figure out how to build an outhouse or get better plumbing. Only idiots keep hitting themselves with a hammer and wonder why their head hurts.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday May 23 2014, @08:46AM
I meant seasonal oscillations in the amount of microplastic absorption: confirmations of global warming just stresses the point that there cannot be a growing arctic sink, which is the point I underlined about OP.
(Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Friday May 23 2014, @12:05AM
The trapped vessel made for good drama for a while too. There was even a sub-story as to what country could take credit for rescuing the vessel (forget if anyone did). It was mainly over the Christmas/New Year period so it would've been easy enough to miss. Here are a couple of links.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/05/antar ctic-rescue-us-ship-trapped [theguardian.com]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/14 0102-antarctica-ship-trapped-ice-rescue-akademik-s hokalskiy-world-science/ [nationalgeographic.com]
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday May 23 2014, @10:09PM
Huh? Until it hits 100% plastic, you certainly CAN have a sink. It's not like the ice that forms one winter all entirely melts the next spring. This stuff moves. Granted, the majority of the ice that melts this spring probably will be the same ice that formed last winter...but not 100% of it.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday May 24 2014, @08:22AM
Well that reduces a lot the sink size, and the ice that has not trapped plastic likely moves as well so you seem to have described a variant of maxwell's demon that keeps plastic ice frozen and melts the purer one. Now, there could well be a mechanism to achieve that, so it' not really against entropy, yet the sink size is still small.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday May 27 2014, @12:43PM
No, it doesn't require any process to ensure only plastic-free ice melts. 100% of the ice that freezes in the winter will contain the average amount of ocean plastic. So long as less than 100% of the ice that melts contains that same amount, it will still be acting as a sink. Even if 99% of the melting ice contains plastic, just 1% clean, it'll contain that 1% more plastic when it re-freezes the next winter.
Of course I'm assuming the amount of arctic ice is constant -- which isn't quite true -- but you get the idea...
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Thursday May 22 2014, @09:28PM
Ok, here's a few things from various articles:
1. The ship was in the antarctic to research global warming by looking for reduced levels of ice.
2. It was there in the summer.
3. It was trapped in record levels of ice.
4. They (Turney) expected to see melting ice, not record levels of ice.
5. They actually found, and were stuck in record levels of ice.
Now wait for a moment and think..If they go there and they find massively melting ice, or below average levels of ice...They would surely conclude it's global warming, right? Sounds fair.
What do they do when they find so much ice, record levels of ice..That both they are stuck and icebreakers are unable to reach them? Oh.. That's um... weather. Nope, it can't be evidence against global warming. Oh wait, infact: It is actually global warming!
“Global warming can mean colder. It can mean wetter. It can mean drier. That’s what we’re talking about,†(R1)
So.. If it's warmer..it's global warming.
If it's colder... It's global warming.
Wetter? Global warming.
Drier? Global warming.
Ship stuck in record levels of ice? Global warming.
Ship sailing through open water where there used to be ice? Global warming.
So when every possible thing is global warming it seems pretty easy to get evidence of global warming. You ask why I think it's BS..well there you go.
Climate change is a real thing.. And it's been going on for thousands of years. That doesn't mean we need to respect people saying things like “Global warming can mean colder. It can mean wetter. It can mean drier. That’s what we’re talking about,†(R1) .. I'm just tired of hearing that crap. Eventually we will have a hotter winter..That'll be global warming too I bet. And the next colder winter too. Then the average one after that. Where does it stop?
References:e s-to-promote-climate-change-hype/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
R1: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/09/risking-liv
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Friday May 23 2014, @04:01AM
It was hardly record levels of ice, they were following the path of early explorers. And those explorers would have been already walking on the ice at that stage due to the much higher levels of ice that was present there in the past.
Perhaps if you had followed even your own google link or any that other people had suggested to you, you would realise now how wrong you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @03:47PM
Could it be that the 'microplastics' are the reason the arctic ice is shrinking? There is a normal, natural (yearly?) melt/freeze cycle. Perhaps the 'microplastics' are making the re-freeze stage less productive. This would cause the arctic ice to slowly shrink each year until it reached a point where no re-freezing occurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freezing-point_depres sion [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 22 2014, @03:51PM
Whatever the case may be, we've only been massively using plastic for the last 50-60 years. Any ice containing this crap, must have formed in the last 50 years, so loss of ice we didn't have 50 years ago should not be alarming.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday May 23 2014, @10:06PM
That's only true if the ice that forms this winter is the exact same ice that melts next spring. Which isn't true. This stuff moves.
They use massive cores drilled from the ice to get thousands of years of geologic and atmospheric data. If it works as you imply, that wouldn't work. All the data trapped in this winter's freeze would vanish when it melted next spring.
Some (though certainly not all) of the ice containing plastics is almost certainly displacing ice that does not, every year.