SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Environmental pollutants have gathered in the deepest parts of Earth's oceans:
Chemicals banned in the 1970s have been found in the deepest reaches of the Pacific Ocean, a new study shows. Scientists were surprised by the relatively high concentrations of pollutants like PCBs and PBDEs in deep sea ecosystems. Used widely during much of the 20th Century, these chemicals were later found to be toxic and to build up in the environment.
[...] The team led by Dr Alan Jamieson at the University of Newcastle sampled levels of pollutants in the fatty tissue of amphipods (a type of crustacean) from deep below the Pacific Ocean surface. The animals were retrieved using specially designed "lander" vehicles deployed from a boat over the Mariana and Kermadec trenches, which are over 10km deep and separated from each other by 7,000km.
[...] In their paper, the authors say it can be difficult to place the levels of contamination found below the Pacific into a wider context - in part because previous studies of contamination gathered measurements in different ways. But they add that in the Mariana trench, the highest levels of PCBs were 50 times greater than in crabs from paddy fields fed by the Liaohe River, one of the most polluted rivers in China. Dr Jamieson commented: "The amphipods we sampled contained levels of contamination similar to that found in Suruga Bay [in Japan], one of the most polluted industrial zones of the northwest Pacific."
Also at Washington Post, USA Today, and KUNC (NPR).
Bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants in the deepest ocean fauna (open, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-016-0051) (DX)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:03AM
That's why we don't use the term "Global warming" any more, but the term "Climate change". The first assume that all places get warmer over time, the second doesn't. Example, while you claim a very cold winter, Iceland had its warmest winter in decades.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Wednesday February 15 2017, @11:38AM
To stay in character:
Dat's dem weaslewording lefties right there. Saying something, and when proven wrong they say something different and claim they meant that all along!
More serious:
I never considered it a change of terms, for me both terms are used in parallel. I don't think it helps to abandon the term global warming; "climate change" sounds imo too harmless. Those who don't want to get it won't get it either way. Global warming already means that the global temperature raises, not the local weather, and it sounds imo more alarming than climate change.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 15 2017, @07:04PM
"It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation…“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”…While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge".
Source: Republican Political Consultant Frank Luntz, 2003, in a strategy memo for the GW Bush administration.
The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced. [theguardian.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 16 2017, @03:02PM
Global warming however is a fact. We're not talking about here or there or today or yesterday but about the global average temperature trendline.
In short the planet is retaining more of solar radiation than before.