[The Reactionary Tree]

Turns out there is not an island of trash the size of Texas floating around the Pacific Ocean. The original estimates were WAY TOO large.

Here are some links:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/07/04/pla...-estimate/

http://billlawrenceonline.com/floating-g...te-little/

[The Lizard of Oz]

LOL, of course it was nonsense. I got a big chuckle out of that one when it first made the rounds.

It is touching and almost endearing how completely people, especially but not exclusively females, will believe certain completely incredible things if someone publishes a "study" and adduces a few numbers to it. People have a mystical belief in numbers and feel that they are sacred and always reflect reality.

I remember reading about this on progressive forums a few years ago and there were some people there that were so scared by this supposed giant floating island that I actually felt bad for them. There were some 50 year old "vegan" women in, say, Oregon with their own gardens on little plots of land who were having regular nightmares about this imaginary island. They would post almost hapless laments about what this world is coming to and the "plastic island" loomed very large in their minds. It was comical, but also provoked real sympathy in me. People just don't know what to believe and they can have a childlike imagination and fearfulness.

[Tuthmosis]

(07-11-2014 08:40 AM)objectivist tree Wrote:  

Here are some links:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/07/04/pla...-estimate/

http://billlawrenceonline.com/floating-g...te-little/

Do you have some links and/or videos from more credible sources?

[The Lizard of Oz]

Tuth, here is the recently published PNAS paper that corrects/retracts the ludicrous earlier estimates:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/0...1.full.pdf

Abstract:

Quote:

There is a rising concern regarding the accumulation of floating plastic debris in the open ocean. However, the magnitude and the fate of this pollution are still open questions. Using data from the Malaspina 2010 circumnavigation, regional surveys, and previously published reports, we show a worldwide distribution of plastic on the surface of the open ocean, mostly accumulating in the convergence zones of each of the five subtropical gyres with comparable density. However, the global load of plastic on the open ocean surface was estimated to be on the order of tens of thousands of tons, far less than expected. Our observations of the size distribution of floating plastic debris point at important size-selective sinks removing millimeter-sized fragments of floating plastic on a large scale. This sink may involve a combination of fast nano-fragmentation of the microplastic into particles of microns or smaller, their transference to the ocean interior by food webs and ballasting processes, and processes yet to be discovered. Resolving the fate of the missing plastic debris is of fundamental importance to determine the nature and significance of the impacts of plastic pollution in the ocean.

There are some interesting things here because once again nature proves to be much more efficient (by orders of magnitude) at processing/"metabolizing" all sorts of materials than anyone thought possible. The same thing happened to the Gulf oil spill where the oil was eaten up by bacteria faster than anyone thought possible.

When they say the estimated load is "far less than expected" that is a bit of an understatement. It is thousands of times less than the ludicrous earlier estimates. It was not necessary to await the publication of this paper to know that those estimates defied belief and common sense.

[kaotic]

Do you think there still IS an actual problem of humans polluting the ocean ?

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 01:17 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

Do you think there still IS an actual problem of humans polluting the ocean ?

Good question.

The answer is, not really. The oceans are very, very big; the shit we throw in them is not nearly enough to make any kind of real difference. And there is a vast and unknown diversity of living organisms in oceans that eat up almost anything you throw at them.

Mercury is something to be aware of because it accumulates in fish, although the current levels are low enough that they present very little danger.

If you want to worry about water pollution think more about freshwater because the size of the reservoir is so much smaller. Some rivers, lakes etc in various parts of the world (eg China, India etc) are polluted to dangerous levels, although in the US and western countries there has been notable and dramatic improvement in water quality in recent decades.

[General Stalin]

The bigger deal is what we take out of the ocean. The amount of ocean life we kill is astronomical, and a lot of fish we eat mass quantities of are dwindling. Most abused ecosystem on the planet and most folks are totally unaware.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 02:43 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The bigger deal is what we take out of the ocean. The amount of ocean life we kill is astronomical, and a lot of fish we eat mass quantities of are dwindling. Most abused ecosystem on the planet and most folks are totally unaware.

Not really. In fact, fish stocks that were supposedly "irreversibly depleted" have rebounded harder and faster than anyone expected. Bluefin tuna was considered on its way out but as soon as fishing quotas were reduced populations rebounded and are projected to be at "record levels" in a few years. Quite a comeback for a species that was supposed to be "near extinction".

The truth is that the oceans are vast and we have no idea how big populations really are, where they go etc. The one constant has been that in almost every case natural ecosystems have proven themselves to be orders of magnitude more resilient than anyone realized. But you won't hear too much about it from environmentalist NGOs and the like.

[General Stalin]

(07-11-2014 03:05 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:43 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The bigger deal is what we take out of the ocean. The amount of ocean life we kill is astronomical, and a lot of fish we eat mass quantities of are dwindling. Most abused ecosystem on the planet and most folks are totally unaware.

Not really. In fact, fish stocks that were supposedly "irreversibly depleted" have rebounded harder and faster than anyone expected. Bluefin tuna was considered on its way out but as soon as fishing quotas were reduced populations rebounded and are projected to be at "record levels" in a few years. Quite a comeback for a species that was supposed to be "near extinction".

The truth is that the oceans are vast and we have no idea how big populations really are, where they go etc. The one constant has been that in almost every case natural ecosystems have proven themselves to be orders of magnitude more resilient than anyone realized. But you won't hear too much about it from environmentalist NGOs and the like.

Do you have some sources you could show me? It's possible my knowledge is dated, but I'm going off of data that is only a couple years old, unless the regulatory efforts have really made that much of an impact in just 2 years.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 03:21 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

Do you have some sources you could show me? It's possible my knowledge is dated, but I'm going off of data that is only a couple years old, unless the regulatory efforts have really made that much of an impact in just 2 years.

AP article from 2012

Quote:

Two years on, their strategy for rebuilding stocks of Atlantic Bluefin tuna appears to be working.

Thanks in part to a sharp reduction in the amount of fish legally caught, the bluefin population in the Atlantic is on the rebound though "the magnitude and speed of the increase vary considerably," according to a stock assessment by scientists released ahead of the annual International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas which starts Monday in Morocco.

"We have been working and campaigning on the issue of bluefin tuna for 12 years so to finally see signs of a recovery trend is good news", said Sergi Tudela, head of the fisheries program at WWF Mediterranean

Australian article from 2013

Quote:

BLUEFIN tuna fishing quotas will increase to levels not seen since the 1980s following growth in the population of the critically endangered fish.

The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna yesterday agreed in Adelaide to increase the annual southern bluefin tuna catch through to 2017.

The commission agreed to a 20 per cent increase to the quota over the next two years, lifting it to 5665 tonnes - the highest catch limit since 1989.

The increase comes on top of a 32 per cent lift to the quota for the 2011 to 2013 catch.

Port Lincoln fisherman Marcus Stehr, 48, welcomed the increase in the fishing quota, saying there was no question tuna stocks were thriving.

The Eyre Peninsula fishing town is responsible for about 97 per cent of the country's tuna haul, accounting for up to $300 million in exports each year.

"If the fishery wasn't in good shape I'd be one of the first people to say don't give us back any quota but the way I'm reading it, I'm very happy,'' Mr Stehr said.

"I never ever have been out there and not caught our quota.

"In some instances we go out there for barely two weeks and we catch all of our quota in quick succession.''

More recent news

Quote:

Contrary to the inaccurate claims of certain NGOs, wild stocks of Bluefin Tuna worldwide are on the rebound. In the limited regions of our oceans where bluefin tuna are found, stock assessments and commercial fishing reports have been INCREASING at current fishing levels.

Both the fishing industry and the scientific community are convinced that by managing catch quotas of tunas and the forage fish they eat, bluefin tuna stocks worldwide can and have been increasing.

Bluefin tuna spawn millions of eggs, and reach sexual maturity within 5 years.

Since 2007, catch quotas have been drastically reduced in nearly all bluefin tuna fisheries around the world = REDUCED FISHING PRESSURE ON THIS FISHERY HAS GIVEN THE BLUEFIN A CHANCE TO RECOVER.

The latest scientific and commercial fishing data show that bluefin tuna stocks worldwide are reaching sustainable levels at current catch quotas.

Best example is the population of Mediterranean (Atlantic) bluefin tuna was in “critical” conditions in 2007. Since that year drastic cuts in catch quotas of bluefin tuna have resulted in the latest stock assessment in 2011 predicts “RECORD LEVELS” of bluefin in the Mediterranean are predicted by 2016—similar to bluefin biomass levels from 1970!

CURRENT STOCK ASSESSMENT OF PACIFIC BLUEFINS: This issue has been distorted by multiple media sources, often due in part to ulterior motives of NGO’s and other environmental groups, so much that confusion over the actual Pacific Bluefin population have fallen completely out of line with factual researched information by biologists. One source even claimed more than 96% of bluefin tuna in the Pacific ocean were “gone” in 2013. As drastic as this number sounds, this “96%” refers ONLY to the giant northern bluefin that weigh upwards of 500# and are 15-25 years old, which are a subset of an exponentially larger biomass of the bluefin tuna population which begin spawning from 4 to 8 years of age. In the same report it was made clear that for over five decades the total capture of all sizes of northern bluefin has remained basically the same, unaffected by the decline of the population of the giants.

The overall picture is that stocks are rebounding very rapidly in response to quotas, to the extent that in some case (as in the Australian article) quotas can be raised again after a relatively short period of time.

[RockHard]

(07-11-2014 03:05 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 02:43 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

The bigger deal is what we take out of the ocean. The amount of ocean life we kill is astronomical, and a lot of fish we eat mass quantities of are dwindling. Most abused ecosystem on the planet and most folks are totally unaware.

Not really. In fact, fish stocks that were supposedly "irreversibly depleted" have rebounded harder and faster than anyone expected. Bluefin tuna was considered on its way out but as soon as fishing quotas were reduced populations rebounded and are projected to be at "record levels" in a few years. Quite a comeback for a species that was supposed to be "near extinction".

The truth is that the oceans are vast and we have no idea how big populations really are, where they go etc. The one constant has been that in almost every case natural ecosystems have proven themselves to be orders of magnitude more resilient than anyone realized. But you won't hear too much about it from environmentalist NGOs and the like.

Also, I'd venture a totally uneducated guess that an ever increasing amount of fish is farmed, not wild caught. Humans consume a lot of fish, but fishing in the open ocean is dangerous and not nearly as profitable as farm raising fish.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 03:59 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

Also, I'd venture a totally uneducated guess that an ever increasing amount of fish is farmed, not wild caught. Humans consume a lot of fish, but fishing in the open ocean is dangerous and not nearly as profitable as farm raising fish.

Yep, that's correct:

Fish Farming Overtaking Traditional Fisheries

Quote:

Fish farming is the fastest growing area of animal food production, increasing at a 6.6 percent annual rate from 1970 to 2008, the F.A.O. said in a report, State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Over that period, the global per capita supply of farm-raised fish rose to 7.8 kilograms, or 17.2 pounds, from 0.7 kilogram.

.....

Aquaculture now makes up 46 percent of the world’s food-fish supply in volume terms, up from 43 percent in 2006, according to the report, and appeared to have overtaken wild fisheries in dollar value, at $98.4 billion in 2008 compared with $93.9 billion

[tarquin]

If Pacific Trash Island is a lie, how does Dog the Bounty Hunter still have a job?

[The Lizard of Oz]

Going back to the original "trash island" story. There is an important lesson here.

This is a very instructive example of how wildly inaccurate, unbelievable, and absurd claims from a single study get taken at face value and are then used by fanatics in power to change people's lives for the worse.

The original estimate, which was off by many orders of magnitude came from a single paper (by the same guy, Cozar, who authored the recent paper which corrects and retracts the absurd extrapolations made in his own earlier work). This one, obviously bogus, number was single-handedly responsible for the fact that hundreds of cities in the US passed regulations prohibiting the use of single-use plastic bags. San Francisco, of course, led the way in 2007. Tens of millions of people had to be annoyed and inconvenienced, all to prevent the formation of a completely non-existent and in fact patently absurd "plastic island" vaguely but ominously floating somewhere "out there" in the endless blue.

Among other things, this illustrates the danger of having women in positions of power and authority. One male trait that women lack almost completely is a basic horse sense and nose when it comes to orders of magnitude. As has been noted many times, women basically think of things as being "big" or "small" -- they are helpless when having to decide if some reported or estimated number seems plausible in a rough-and-ready order of magnitude way. There is virtually not one woman in the world who, when told that there is a "garbage island the size of Texas" in the ocean, will instinctively doubt whether this makes sense. They will always buy any such claim hook, line and sinker -- no pun intended, I guess. And they will very rapidly become agitated and howl that "something must be done". And before you know it, you're shit out of luck using a simple and convenient plastic bag, your sister is a zombie on a "cocktail" of 4 anti-depressants "suggested as effective" by a single study, and your buddy's son has been expelled from Dartmouth by a kangaroo court made mandatory because "1 out of 5 women on campus are sexually assaulted".

Watch out for numbers -- they can be repeated as gospel truth thousands of times, but if you look to the source you will often find that all these claims are traced to **one study** which is very possibly ill-designed, riddled with errors or outright fraudulent. Use the common sense and the nose that you have as a man, and try to understand if things claimed to be true make sense in a rough and ready way -- especially if those things are going to affect your life and very possibly fuck with it and make it worse and less enjoyable than it could be.

[TigerMandingo]

I honestly believe the Earth is fine. Its been around for billions of years. Humans are arrogant as fuck and think that their stupid SUVs damage the ozone layer or whatnot. Humans will disappear much, much earlier than the Earth will.

[Vroom]

Well it sure is convenient to learn that we can't possibly harm our environment at all.

Makes it much easier for me to mindlessly consume every piece of shit someone wants to sell me.

[Patriarch]

Well, back to hunting bluefin tunas with mercury depth charges from my amphibious, coal-powered SUV.

[BlurredSevens]

(07-11-2014 05:17 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This is a very instructive example of how wildly inaccurate, unbelievable, and absurd claims from a single study get taken at face value and are then used by fanatics in power to change people's lives for the worse.

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

National Geographic, the UN, Smithsonian, NOAA, NASA, the EPA, Discover, etc., have all done and continue to do tremendous research into the effects of ocean dumping on marine life, and it is clearly big problem. Some quick googling turns up studies, articles, and papers from these reputable sources. Much of this waste has accumulated into dense, centralized areas, aka garbage patches or garbage islands.

So yes, I agree with you: taking wildly inaccurate claims from single sources (like YouTube videos from non-scientists) at face value does far more harm than good.

Humans dump enormous amounts of trash, sewage, and industrial waste into the oceans every day - that isn't an opinion. I'm not sure how someone can argue that this isn't a problem, and that it doesn't have a tremendously negative impact on the environment.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 07:42 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

You saw that I posted the link to, and an abstract of, the recently published academic paper by the same author on whose claim the entire "trash island" story was based, which unambiguously states that the original estimates were off by many orders of magnitude? Or did you just decide to ignore that?

[Vroom]

(07-11-2014 08:05 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 07:42 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

You saw that I posted the link to, and an abstract of, the recently published academic paper by the same author on whose claim the entire "trash island" story was based, which unambiguously states that the original estimates were off by many orders of magnitude? Or did you just decide to ignore that?

Then the problem is one of scale, not that there is no problem at all.

I'd see even 1 ton of floating rubbish as pretty disgusting so to me, it's not important whether it's estimated to be 100,000,000 tons or a "mere" 35,000 tons.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 07:15 PM)Vroom Wrote:  

Well it sure is convenient to learn that we can't possibly harm our environment at all.

Makes it much easier for me to mindlessly consume every piece of shit someone wants to sell me.

(07-11-2014 07:41 PM)Sweet Pea Wrote:  

Well, back to hunting bluefin tunas with mercury depth charges from my amphibious, coal-powered SUV.

(07-11-2014 07:42 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 05:17 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

This is a very instructive example of how wildly inaccurate, unbelievable, and absurd claims from a single study get taken at face value and are then used by fanatics in power to change people's lives for the worse.

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

National Geographic, the UN, Smithsonian, NOAA, NASA, the EPA, Discover, etc., have all done and continue to do tremendous research into the effects of ocean dumping on marine life, and it is clearly big problem. Some quick googling turns up studies, articles, and papers from these reputable sources. Much of this waste has accumulated into dense, centralized areas, aka garbage patches or garbage islands.

So yes, I agree with you: taking wildly inaccurate claims from single sources (like YouTube videos from non-scientists) at face value does far more harm than good.

Humans dump enormous amounts of trash, sewage, and industrial waste into the oceans every day - that isn't an opinion. I'm not sure how someone can argue that this isn't a problem, and that it doesn't have a tremendously negative impact on the environment.

These posts are of the exact same level of rhetorical argument as posts by feminists fanatically insisting on the "1 in 5 coeds is assaulted" claim (for example).

"Um, ok, so like you're saying everything just fine and dandy? Frat boys can just go back to raping women?"

"Ummm... it was in the New York Times and Salon. So yeah, I don't think I'm gonna listen to whatever you say"

People want to believe that we are "destroying the planet" with out "garbage"; so they are willing to keep parroting absurd claims even after they've been retracted by the author of the paper on which the claims were based in the first place.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(07-11-2014 08:09 PM)Vroom Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 08:05 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 07:42 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

You saw that I posted the link to, and an abstract of, the recently published academic paper by the same author on whose claim the entire "trash island" story was based, which unambiguously states that the original estimates were off by many orders of magnitude? Or did you just decide to ignore that?

Then the problem is one of scale, not that there is no problem at all.

I'd see even 1 ton of floating rubbish as pretty disgusting so to me, it's not important whether it's estimated to be 100,000,000 tons or a "mere" 35,000 tons.

Dude -- that's like the feminist saying "Umm... whatever. One rape is one too many, that's all I know".

Scale matters a great deal. Do you have a sense of how unspeakably vast the oceans are? A ton is nothing.

That is something that the dude was actually talking about in the video, which is far from "rambling" -- he makes a number of good points, mainly that people have no sense of scale whatsoever (well, women never do, but even men can do a lot better).

By the way, there is no reason to believe there even single "tons" of garbage are floating in the ocean in a concentrated way. The estimates refer to the total load, which is distributed across an unfathomable large volume -- just in case the visual of that ton all floating together offends you for some reason.

[Vroom]

Not really man. Every culture has grasped the importance of not taking more than they need and avoiding poisoning the well.

This must be another of those cases where simple and universal principles apply everywhere else except for the west. Sounds familiar?

[Vroom]

(07-11-2014 08:19 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 08:09 PM)Vroom Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 08:05 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 07:42 PM)BlurredSevens Wrote:  

What's ironic is that the OP's source is one guy: a guy who does not appear to be a scientist or a marine biologist or even a journalist. It's just a rambling video by some unqualified bozo.

You saw that I posted the link to, and an abstract of, the recently published academic paper by the same author on whose claim the entire "trash island" story was based, which unambiguously states that the original estimates were off by many orders of magnitude? Or did you just decide to ignore that?

Then the problem is one of scale, not that there is no problem at all.

I'd see even 1 ton of floating rubbish as pretty disgusting so to me, it's not important whether it's estimated to be 100,000,000 tons or a "mere" 35,000 tons.

Dude -- that's like the feminist saying "Umm... whatever. One rape is one too many, that's all I know".

Scale matters a great deal. Do you have a sense of how [b]unspeakably vast the oceans are? A ton is nothing[/b].

That is something that the dude was actually talking about in the video, which is far from "rambling" -- he makes a number of good points, mainly that people have no sense of scale whatsoever (well, women never do, but even men can do a lot better).

By the way, there is no reason to believe there even single "tons" of garbage are floating in the ocean in a concentrated way. The estimates refer to the total load, which is distributed across an unfathomable large volume -- just in case the visual of that ton all floating together offends you for some reason.

My front yard is vast compared to someones discarded chip packet that blows into it, but I still don't like it there. What can I say - some people are fastidious, some are slobs. Some people gorge themselves at a buffet, some only eat till they're comfortably satisfied. Neither is going to be "convinced" to change their ways by science.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Vroom, "not really" what? What exactly do you disagree with?

What "well" are we "poisoning"?

I have a lot of sympathy with what you're feeling actually believe it or not -- there are many good and decent people who feel that we have a responsibility to treat the environment well, keep it clean and so on. And that's a fine and honorable feeling.

But the problem is that we have been subjected to decades of relentless propaganda that we are "destroying the planet". And people have swallowed the propaganda so wholly that they are willing to believe the most absurd and outlandish claims. Even when these claims are shown to be false, people just "know in their guts" that "something is wrong". Why? Because that's the line they've been fed for so many years.

The truth is that in almost every way the state of the environment has been improving for decades now. In many areas the improvement is dramatic. The technologies of the early Industrial Revolution really were dirty and polluting in many ways; they are being phased out, have already been phased out for a long time. By any measurable criterion, things are getting better. That's all in publicly available numbers, for all to see.

Yet nobody knows that, or almost nobody. Why? Because that's not the story being told. That story is one of relentless gloom and doom that flies completely in the face of the facts. And that makes decent people like yourself worry about things that you don't need to worry about -- which is terrible.