There's something fairly drastic going on that's becoming thoroughly documented on the ocean current vortices that might well explain what's happening with climate change better than a lot of other hypotheses.  Plastics being washed off the land surfaces of all the continents are being carried to central locations and accumulating there by the current vortices.


Once dissolved, evidently the plastics don't sink because they're lighter than water, and they don't break down further.  Instead, they create a layer of dissolved plastic between the water surface and the atmosphere, inhibiting or stopping evaporation.

Debris from the Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch is displayed on SEAPLEX's research ship New Horizon in summer 2009.

Perhaps 10 percent of the 260 million tons of plastic produced worldwide each year ends up in the sea--much of it in the swirling currents of the North Pacific Gyre and other ocean vortices.

During the New Horizon's 1,700-mile (2,700-kilometer) cruise through the garbage patch, scientists dragged nets through the ocean a hundred times. Each troll yielded plastic debris--a "pretty shocking" result, said Scripps biological oceanography doctoral student Miriam Goldstein.

"In the ocean it's pretty unusual to find exactly what you're looking for over and over and over again," added Goldstein, principal investigator on the expedition.


The expedition easily spotted some types of plastic. But a larger problem may lurk below the surface.

The SEAPLEX team collected data on the extent of the garbage patch at the surface and the oceanographic conditions there. But no one knows how prevalent plastic may be below the surface.

What's more, this isn't the world's only vast ocean garbage patch, or even the biggest. Scripps Institution scientists hope to soon visit a massive garbage patch off South America about which even less is known.


An estimated 80 percent of the trash in the Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch was simply discarded by people on shore, according to Doug Woodring of Project Kaisei, an ocean-health nonprofit that collaborated with SEAPLEX. Cutting down on that type of waste is likely the best way to begin cleaning up the world's oceans, the researchers say

—Photograph courtesy Scripps Institution of Oceanography

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also described as the Pacific Trash Vortex, is a gyre of marine litter in the central North Pacific Ocean located roughly between 135°W to 155°W and 35°N to 42°N.[1] The patch extends over an indeterminate area, with estimates ranging very widely depending on the degree of plastic concentration used to define the affected area.

The Patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge, and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.[2] Despite its size and density, the patch is not visible from satellite photography, since it consists primarily of suspended particulates in the upper water column. Since plastics break down to ever smaller polymers, concentrations of submerged particles are not visible from space, nor do they appear as a continuous debris field. Instead, the patch is defined as an area in which the mass of plastic debris in the upper water column is significantly higher than average.



All this has probably been going on since WWII without anyone noticing.  If there's any way of interrupting whatever consequences will result, nobody's come up with anything as yet.  It might well be a climate-time bomb already happening.





Views: 166

Replies to This Discussion

Combine this with the fact that the Gulf Stream has been disrupted across the North Atlantic by the BP-Gulf oil spill and you have major changes in the Earth's temperature control mechanisms. Certainly would contribute to climate change.

But I still don't see how this explains the warming of the other inner planets in the Solar System. There seems to be something much bigger going on than is seen by the tunnel vision of those with points to prove or disprove.

If you doubt these facts, perhaps you would want to do some research. You could start with Gulf Stream, planetary warming, and National Geographic.

Morgan:  Research is always a benefit for each of us.  Highly recommended as a means of forming opinions for those inclined to indulge in opinions.  But my point is that there's a lot of inevitable consequence stewing on the planet involving this human activity and we haven't any cause to believe we know what a fraction of it is.


When you and I were only a hair younger the best scientific minds were expressing the belief we are teetering on the brink of another ice age.  Now it's the other direction.  Two, three decades from now if anyone's around there's no reason to believe it won't be another ice age they're touting.


Same as Nostrdamus finds himself predicting global wars and global warming depending on what's occupying the minds of the moments he's being examined.  Same as the Mayan calendar was lying around centuries not predicting anything at all until a few years ago it became a means for modern Nostradamus lookalikes to discover it had some meaning.


As for the temperatures of the inner-solar system planets, it's been a matter of speculation until the space programs had the means and the technologies had the means to get best estimates.  Historical data's difficult to come by prior to that time.


They didn't even know until a decade ago the sun reverses magnetic polarity every ten years or so, or at least it's done it once and they speculate it's a ten year reversal cycle.  For what that's worth.


But if people prefer to believe just about anything at all it's not going to make it happen, nor keep it from happening, and it's not required any of us understand it, which we mostly don't.


Even so, some things are considerably more observable, documented, measurable, even predictable than others.  And none of them involve the 26,000 years the solar system happens to take orbiting the galactic center.  Believe it or not, every moment this solar system's been in that orbit it was somewhere it would be roughly again 26,000 years later.  Trouble is we weren't keeping good records 26,000 years ago, 36,000 years ago, or 16,000 years ago.  If we had some elders old enough maybe they could remember.

What's more, this isn't the world's only vast ocean garbage patch, or even the biggest. Scripps Institution scientists hope to soon visit a massive garbage patch off South America about which even less is known.

How chilling.

Where's the reference to warming of other planets in the Solar System as it relates to these trash dumps?  Read Jules'  synopsis twice and am missing this link.

I guess scientists backed down on some of the initial predictions of a coming ice age.  However, recalling the last "little ice age",  we are still in danger of a recurrence based partly on slowing of the Gulf Stream conveyor belt.   Yes, we have/had/will continue with global warming (climate change is just new semantics). 

No reference from Jules on the other planets. That was my point. We cannot consider only one element of a system without including the whole system. Especially when the whole system is experiencing the same phenomena.

Ah, so.  Checking out your google search,  we get this:

In this case, our lower/middle atmosphere being part of the problem, climate change appears to be our planet's problem.   All our predictions are based on what we have done to change our atmosphere compared to atmospheric measurements.  They G-up.  Any solar system pressure or galaxy event would throw the measurements off, showing another influence besides the ones studied.  Anything is possible.  Well taken point to keep our view broader rather than narrower.  Yet so far, the evidence just doesn't point that way.

I liked the Most Used Climate Myths thermometer links on this page.

Thanks for the extra look.

We now have opposing views from scientists on this as well as whether global warming is even real, cigarettes are harmful to your health (looking back a few years), whether fracking is hazardous to planetary health, and evolution/creationism...

I guess, like statistics, science doesn't lie- scientists do (depending on who signs their paychecks). Of course most don't lie, they just interpret their observations differently depending upon personal bias, openness, skepticism, politics, religion, etc.

So again we take pot luck and must choose to follow our own intuition, which we should all do. Inner guidance is the key to survival.

I guess that puts me amongst the skeptical. (I'm also skeptical about "medical science", "scientific cloning", and "scientific GMO").

Hi Morgan.  Science is just a method of observing, attempting to explain what's observed, testing the explanations against further observations ad infinitum.  A 'scientist' is a person who uses that method of observing, hypothesizing and testing.  The people gathering the data are often more accurately described as technicians than scientists.  And the people applying the theories derived of it are engineers, as opposed to scientists.  The people who attend universities to study and memorize the findings of the relatively few actual 'scientists' aren't rendered scientists themselves simply by virtue of having memorized the work of people who used science as a means of arriving at theories engineers could use.  They're just teachers, educators, hangers on, though they often call themselves scientists without actually doing any science.


The end result is that a perfectly usable and efficient method of arriving at as-nearly-as-possible personal explanations for what's going on around us gets tarred with a brush actually describing a self-serving, self-aggrandizing 'we' community of engineers, teachers, academians and technicians squeezing up to the trough of any grant-possibility a corporation or government entity might think of.


But the fact the overwhelming majority of scientists aren't scientists doesn't mean the process of acquiring understanding of the Universe  is invalid and depending on intuition is a better or more accurate way of doing it.

Yep! Very well put... that was essentially what I was trying to say. The end result of that analysis has been filtered through many personal filters and must be considered in that light. Once again we're  basically in agreement.

Like statistics, the measurements are as valid as our instrumentation and math can make them. After that, it's anybody's game.


Rainbow Family Resources

Rainbow Family Websites. 

Please message me if you have more links and resources can share. You can also create your own group.

Goodreads Group

Help select the next Author Interview on "Up Close with Chris Tinney". Join THIS GOODREADS GROUP 

Latest Activity

Contact Admin

Questions? Message me here or any of these social networks.

This site supported by   

Linked In / Facebook / Instagram / Radio Show

Chris Tinney
My Rainbow Profile

"Help the Homeless

Thankyou network marketing companies Hempworx, & Uforia, and Young Living Essential OilsPurium Brand Partners, and Arbonne Distributor for sponsoring this site, and paying the monthly fees!

© 2021   Created by Chris Tinney.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service