"The Great Pacific Garbage Patch"

[caulkins]

Chalk up another demerit for the pseudo-History Channel. In the most recent episode of "Life After People," the narrator describes "a floating dump twice the size of Texas" that sits "half way between San Francisco and Hawaii" and "contains 3.5 million tons of nearly-indestructible plastic waste." The voice-over is accompanied by shots of fully-intact plastic bags and bottles densely populating the surface of the water.

[Magyar]

I saw that! I was wondering how accurate that was or what it was based on.

Why do you think it's bs?

[paximperium]

It is only true in a superficial sense and is filled with hyperbole.

There is a "garbage patch" in the middle of the Pacific where the currents and wind lead to an area where little movement occurs so stuff piles up. However this "plastic" is often microscopic since it has been broken down by UV light. Other garbage on the other hand floats and collect around there but we are talking about seeing more junk floating around every few minutes as opposed to huge patches.

Well, good old Hawaii is technically sits in the middle of this "garbage patch".

[Safe-Keeper]

Skeptoid (http://forums.randi.org/www.skeptoid.com) had a nice podcast on this myth.

Oh, we're in the Skeptoid forums. :facepalm: Sorry, opened thread from the latest post page thing.

[AgeGap]

This was mentioned on QI. I think they said it was visible from space. Had a look on Google Earth but can not see it.

[Furcifer]

Discovery did an episode of (??) which followed 2 guys on a boat made out of recycled water bottles (Junk (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2008/06/218100.php)) (They didn't say, but it looked like it was mostly made out of Nalgene bottles, the ones made out of Bisphenol A)

Once they got near the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" they put out a skimmer. What they collected would not be described as "microscopic". They also dissected several small fish with plastic bits inside them.

I'm not sure if this would be classed as pseudo-science. It's real and it shouldn't be there. I'm not sure what chemicals are released from various platics as they decay, but they probably aren't beneficial.

I didn't see the program you referenced, but I suspect fom your tone it was a little over dramatized. From what I saw it didn't appear as dense as they may have suggested either. Still, it's probably something we need to address as a responsible society. It seems relatively easy to correct, stop throwing crap in the ocean and skim off what's already there.

[Floyt]

It's real enough, and has been a concern particularly for marine biologists for some time. Albatross of most species that forage round the edges have roughly half the life expectancy they would have in other areas, and a certain sharply defined layer a few meters down is basically a massive gill net because that's were the unravelled nylon achieves buoyancy.
There's another (smaller) patch off Japan, also busily growing.

Apparently neither quite looks like a floating garbage dump though, because stuff does break down into smaller units, and the greater part is underneath the surface. It's basically plastic-enriched seawater, which is bad enough news for organisms that expect to be able to break down anything they swallow in a day's work.

[Typicallucas]

Bill Maher talked about the garbage patch at the end of the show on April 3rd, 2009.

"Did you know that there is now floating in the Pacific Ocean at 3.5 million ton island of sh*t made up of all the indestructible crap we toss away the stuff that will never break down like Styrofoam and old clorox bottles and it's twice the size of Texas.

Marine biologists call it the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and say it is so out of control that it can't be cleaned up and will be with us forever just taking up space and killing wildlife..."

The hyperbole in all of this is astronomic :)

This kind of over-reaction creates backlash and causes people to tune out. We have a pollution problem in the ocean, we need to deal with it, but for the love of baby Jesus stop exaggerating the truth. I wonder what applying the same level of hyperbole to other parts of our environment would look like...

"Scientists say that breathing air in Los Angeles for 1 hour is like wrapping your lips around the smokestack of a coal power plant and inhaling for 65 years straight."

"NASA has declared space to contain more trash than all the land-fills in Europe, Asia, and Australia combined."

"Objects left on the moon have made the entire thing as cluttered as a cat-lady's apartment."

"California's drinking water is as contaminated as an open-air toilet in North Korea."

[MG1962]

"California's drinking water is as contaminated as an open-air toilet in North Korea."

Actually given the people are almost starving to death, and virtually no industry or air pollution, I would suggest an open air toilet in North Korea would be pretty pristine

[Furcifer]

(snip) and a certain sharply defined layer a few meters down is basically a massive gill net because that's were the unravelled nylon achieves buoyancy.(snip)


I hadn't heard that but suspected some plastics wouldn't be neutrally buoyant. I suppose that makes it harder to clean up, but not impossible?

Then again maybe we don't want to clean it up. Once it reaches critical mass we may be able to build on it.

[NorfolkAtheist]

I hadn't heard that but suspected some plastics wouldn't be neutrally buoyant. I suppose that makes it harder to clean up, but not impossible?

Then again maybe we don't want to clean it up. Once it reaches critical mass we may be able to build on it.

How would we go about cleaning this up? The plastic bits are so small that it would take a pretty finely meshed net to scoop them out and this method would no doubt entangle and kill a massive amount of marine life. What are the other cleanup options?

[Furcifer]

How would we go about cleaning this up? The plastic bits are so small that it would take a pretty finely meshed net to scoop them out and this method would no doubt entangle and kill a massive amount of marine life. What are the other cleanup options?

From what I've seen the majority of the plastic lies on the surface and is large enough to be screened out. Particles that have detriorated below that size present less danger to wildlife (Again, from what I've seen the damage is due to impaction, particles small enough to pass through a screen will pass through most of the wildlife)

I'm not sure a massive amount of marine life would have to be entangled and killed. There's not that much going on at the surface of the ocean, what is there could be dispersed prior to screening.

I think your idea of the problem and mine differ. I'm honestly not sure the extent of the problem. I only saw this one program on it. From what I saw it was an embarassment more than anything.

[foxholeatheist]

The cost of skimming a huge amount of trash like that would be enough to drive most people away unless there was some property given to the plastic by sittin gin the ocean for so long that made it a useful commodity.

How thick is this patch supposed to be? I imagine being able to walk on it or something.

[runnah]

Another podcast I listen to hd this same topic. Theirs was complete BS. Going as far to sa you could walk across it. Needless to say I no longer listen.

I think people forget that if there was indeed a huge patch of floating trash here would be photos galore.

[Proteotopian]

It seems to me to be just a problem of wording. So it isn't a "patch" -- it's an area where there is more plastic than usual, and enough to kill plankton. That's frightening enough without calling it an "island" or claiming it's visible. What scares me is that we are arguing about semantics while the problem is a real one, and might lead to the destruction of an ecosystem.

[foxholeatheist]

Sorry but I am not buying it unless I see some credible photos of something, even a few shampoo caps floating around. I have a hard time buying that a mass "twice the size of Texas" has gone so long under the radar like numerous people have pointed out.

[Almo]

It seems to me to be just a problem of wording. So it isn't a "patch" -- it's an area where there is more plastic than usual, and enough to kill plankton.

Sorry but I am not buying it unless I see some credible photos of something, even a few shampoo caps floating around. I have a hard time buying that a mass "twice the size of Texas" has gone so long under the radar like numerous people have pointed out.

:rolleyes:

[G-K-4]

Here are some links to give you an idea about what the Pacific Garbage Patch looks like. The expected image is not the real situation. You see mostly water, no solid islands you can walk on, just ocean with plastic in it.

But the large pieces of plastic break down into a kind of "soup".
Picture of a jar of the plastic "soup": http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=4625

The smaller pieces are sometimes eaten or otherwise taken in by marine animals.
Picture of a jellyfish filled with plastic: http://science.howstuffworks.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch.htm

Here's a video which will give you a better idea of what that part of the ocean looks like. The ship arrives at the gyre at about 5 minutes in. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3892310789953943147&ei=GnouSuSiOo-IrwKw5tScBw&q=garbage+patch&hl=en&client=firefox-a You can see that this is not the kind of dramatic video that makes people stand up and notice. That doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

Another thread on this subject here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118329

"The X Prize Foundation is considering a prize that would spur the development of innovative ways to 'heal' such garbage patches."
http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/05/22/x-prize-founder-peter-diamandis-targets-breakthroughs-with-more-incentive-prizes/

Maybe someone will come up with a solution. In the meantime, watch that land-based plastic waste, lest it end up in the ocean.

[Jungle Jim]

Here is some more info:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxNqzAHGXvs&feature=related

[shadron]

In 1977 Thor Heyerdahl led two of his famous expeditions: Ra and Ra II, building reed boats in Africa and floating them across the Atlantic to South America. On the way they noticed quite a bit of plastic trash in the Atlantic Ocean, far out to sea.

[GreyICE]

What is this? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is well documented, well researched, and well understood. Yes, it's not bottle caps, it's mostly UV-degraded plastic stew, but it's a total mess, and it's very clearly there. It is about twice the size of Texas. It probably does contain about 3.5 million tons from the density they've taken of the sludge, though that does assume some averaging.

I mean wasn't there a point where skeptics were supposed to go out and look for answers? "Men came from things that were more or less apes, even though they don't look much alike, and we're all related to fish, even though we're nothing like a fish!" Ridiculous concept. Some people say its untrue. Is that where skepticism starts or stops?

[Cayvmann]

What is this? The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is well documented, well researched, and well understood. Yes, it's not bottle caps, it's mostly UV-degraded plastic stew, but it's a total mess, and it's very clearly there. It is about twice the size of Texas. It probably does contain about 3.5 million tons from the density they've taken of the sludge, though that does assume some averaging.

I mean wasn't there a point where skeptics were supposed to go out and look for answers? "Men came from things that were more or less apes, even though they don't look much alike, and we're all related to fish, even though we're nothing like a fish!" Ridiculous concept. Some people say its untrue. Is that where skepticism starts or stops?

Don't you know that if you can't "see" it, then it doesn't exist. Unless you're talking about religion, then the rules kinda flip.

They just don't want to believe it, because is might cost something to fix, and they'd have to admit to being part of the problem. Just a guess on my part.

[Ferguson]

Don't you know that if you can't "see" it, detect, measure, or observe it, then it doesn't exist. Unless Especially when you're talking about religion, then the rules kinda flip. remain exactly the same.

A bit of peer editing for you.

That said, I realize the garbage patch is a serious concern. It's formation was predicted more than 20 years ago (http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154_P247.PDF). I think it would receive less eye-rolling if commentators would refer to it as a "plastic sludge" or something similar. When talking-heads mention it, they usually describe it as a giant trash island, so when people see photos of the surface of the water (when, of course, the vast majority of trash is under water), they write it off.

As with most things, it's a matter of the true nature being obscured by politically motivated ends. i.e. denounced completely by extremes on one side and exaggerated beyond recognition by extremes on the other, until the whole thing becomes a "wash" and nothing substantial is done to curb the problem.

[Proteotopian]

[QUOTE= I think it would receive less eye-rolling if commentators would refer to it as a "plastic sludge" or something similar. When talking-heads mention it, they usually describe it as a giant trash island, so when people see photos of the surface of the water (when, of course, the vast majority of trash is under water), they write it off.

As with most things, it's a matter of the true nature being obscured by politically motivated ends. i.e. denounced completely by extremes on one side and exaggerated beyond recognition by extremes on the other, until the whole thing becomes a "wash" and nothing substantial is done to curb the problem.[/QUOTE]

I whole-heartedly agree with this. It's a good lesson in why activists should never resort to hyperbole -- it can backfire and lead to less, not more, action. The problem of too much plastic in the ocean, being worn down into ever smaller fragments, is scientifically proven to be a serious concern. Yet we are wasting time arguing about whether or not there is a "plastic island" out there. I think David Suzuki said it well when he said the present environmental dialogue is similar to people in a car hurtling out of control towards a brick wall arguing over what station the radio should be tuned to.

[Proteotopian]

(Sorry, still figuring how to quote responses.)

[Z]

Maybe the existence of such patches will lead to the evolution of marine life that can metabolize plastic. At least some microscopic life is supposed to be able to, isn't that right?

We could be contributing to the future of evolution. There, see? All better.

[Almo]

That said, I realize the garbage patch is a serious concern. It's formation was predicted more than 20 years ago (http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-154_P247.PDF). I think it would receive less eye-rolling if commentators would refer to it as a "plastic sludge" or something similar. When talking-heads mention it, they usually describe it as a giant trash island, so when people see photos of the surface of the water (when, of course, the vast majority of trash is under water), they write it off.

Interesting link. You're right about the eye-rolling. It annoys me to no end the people get this picture of an iceberg made of trash in a texas-sized whirlpool.

[GreyICE]

Don't you know that if you can't "see" it, then it doesn't exist. Unless you're talking about religion, then the rules kinda flip.

They just don't want to believe it, because is might cost something to fix, and they'd have to admit to being part of the problem. Just a guess on my part.

Please don't hijack my point with a religion debate. I don't believe in any of it, but I don't really think anyone's view of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch hinges on a supreme being, so don't hitch your chariot to my horse.

[the rugbyologist]

At one point, I took a look at the literature relevant to the issue. It was a while ago and I do not have the literature references here (found everything with simple Google Scholar searches), but I'll try to regurgitate the two relevant points. While marine biologists have noticed plastic in the guts of birds (which is increasing) by sea birds and have been worried about health effects, they have not actually noticed large health effects (I only saw one study that showed any significant effects and they were small). The birds that are always washing up on shore filled with plastic are apparently a species that is the absolute king of plastic eating (does not seem to hurt them), which means that anytime you see a dead specimen it will be filled with plastic.

Charlie Moore provides most of the evidence in favor of the Garbage Patch. One of his prime statistics to demonstrate the issue is the mass of plastic vs the mass of plankton in a given volume of water. His methodological approach is seriously flawed in my opinion. In order to do the comparison, they have to desiccate all their samples. Water does not constitute an important part of the mass of plastic particles, but it does for plankton. So, while trends may be correct, the ratios may not. They also do not compare the Pacific Gyre to other areas, which actually have similar contamination (although it varies widely).

[BenBurch]

Maybe the existence of such patches will lead to the evolution of marine life that can metabolize plastic. At least some microscopic life is supposed to be able to, isn't that right?

We could be contributing to the future of evolution. There, see? All better.

Reminds me of a SciFi story from long ago;

"Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters" by Gerry Davis and Kit Pedler

About a microbe that finds it LIKES plastic, and how it is a disaster for a technological society.

[foxholeatheist]

So I guess the name "The Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is a little misleading then? How about "Soupy Stuff That Used To Be Plastic But Now Is Microscopic Floaty Bits Of Plastic... Patch".

I guess that you're not the problem at all are you Cayvmann? Your poo stinks just like mine does dude. Are you planning on funding the clean up effort then? Sweet.

Proteotopian, I'm going to sit around my CHU in Iraq and maybe rub one out later. I imagine and you and I will have the same net effect on the Giant Trash Patch today. I could be wrong but I doubt that while we wittle away our days on the internets the situation will improve even if we argued about it for years. I could be wrong.

Anyway, so what should happen with it? Anything we throw away ends up in the environment at some point. One way or another trash will always keep finding it's way to the ocean. As long as there are people there will be trash. Monofiliment fishing line is great for catching fish, that is unless you believe that the 3rd world can go without a wonderful source of protein so you get to feel better about the ocean. Sure, it's a false dichotomy but do not confuse my dubiousness with carelessness.

[Proteotopian]

Proteotopian, I'm going to sit around my CHU in Iraq and maybe rub one out later. I imagine and you and I will have the same net effect on the Giant Trash Patch today. I could be wrong but I doubt that while we wittle away our days on the internets the situation will improve even if we argued about it for years. I could be wrong.

I do think you're wrong. I'm an English teacher and I make a point of doing a section in my 100-level class on the rhetoric of the environmental crisis. So we look at various arguments on current ecological debates. I manage in this way to make sure the issue reaches a very large number of young minds, some of whom will go on to take positions of power. I felt for a while that there was nothing I could do, but after thinking about it for a long time, I came up with this strategy. Whether or not this sparks great change, I'll probably never know for sure. But it's something better than throwing up my hands and sneering at others who raise reasonable concerns.

[Margie Marco]

Being new, I accidentally started a new thread on this.:blush:

There was news out this week from a team from University of CA scientist studying the same.

Now, if I recall the podcast correctly, Skeptoid suggested that there was no such thing. While I agree that it is silly to suggest you could walk across it, and that most of the plastic is broken down, the GPGP does in fact *exist*.

Am I missing something?

Margie

[tyr_13]

Welcome to the boards Margie.

I think what you are missing is that the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' does not exist. Yes there is garbage in the Pacific, and yes, it is unacceptable. It is not a great patch. It is nothing like popularly described. It is not different from other garbage in other oceans.

[Margie Marco]

But if it doesn't exist, how did the University of California scientific team study it?

Margie

[tyr_13]

But if it doesn't exist, how did the University of California scientific team study it?

Margie

They didn't. They studied garbage in the Pacific.

EDIT: I've also studied ghost photos. That doesn't mean ghosts exist.

[Margie Marco]

Scientists surprised by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
August 29, 3:39 PM Dallas Progressive Examiner Herschel Tomlinson

Call it the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the Eastern Garbage Patch or the Pacific Vortex, it is much larger and more alarming than scientists suspected.

The patch has been known for years. It is a concentration of man made garbage, mainly plastics, approximately 1000 miles off the California. coast. The vast majority of the debris, which can vary in size from abandoned fishing nets to microscopic pellets, is invisible, floating at or just below the surface.

Between 1985 and 1988, several Alaskan researchers measured neustronic plastic, which is plastic floating at or near the surface, in the North Pacific. Their results, presented in a 1988 paper by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, predicted the existence of a high concentration of plastics in the North Pacific Gyre, a region where currents converge. In 1997, Charles Moore, a sea captain and researcher, discovered the patch while returning from a trans Pacific sailing race. He reported his find to Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer, who named it the Eastern Garbage Patch.

An estimated 80% of the trash comes from land, and 20% from ships. The debris takes around five years to get to the gyre from North America, and a year or less from Asia.
The plastic doesn't biodegrade, but it does photodegrade, that is get broken down by light. The photodegration results in smaller and smaller pieces of plastic, all the way down to the molecular level.

The smaller the pieces get, the more dangerous they are to marine organisms. When they get small enough to be ingested, they are mistaken for a sex hormone by the creatures' endocrine systems, causing a hormonal imbalance. The plastic can also pick up PCBs, DDT and other organic pollutants. One researcher has found that the photodegration releases these toxins. The plastics can carry invasive species, such as barnacles and mussels, from one region to another, causing ecological disruptions.

A paper by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration said that an estimated 100,000 marine mammals are killed by the trash annually.

A team of researchers sponsored by the University of California, and including scientists from La Jolla California's Scripps Oceanographic Institute, have just returned from the patch. In a San Diego press conference, they announced that the patch is larger than they expected, as large as Texas. The team brought back samples, hoping to learn more about the patch's impact.

There is another gyre in the South Pacific, which the scientists say is four times the size of the North Pacific gyre. "We're afraid of what we're going to find in the South Gyre," said the Scripps director, "but we've got to go there."

The Environmental Cleanup Coalition was formed to work with other groups to address the challenge of cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

[technoextreme]

Maybe the existence of such patches will lead to the evolution of marine life that can metabolize plastic. At least some microscopic life is supposed to be able to, isn't that right?

We could be contributing to the future of evolution. There, see? All better.
I remember reading recently that the plastic will just naturally break down. Its a new study that says it will just degrade on its own.

[Margie Marco]

I remember reading recently that the plastic will just naturally break down. Its a new study that says it will just degrade on its own.

The plastic does "degrade" - that is, breaks down into smaller pieces. What it does *not* do is "biodegrade", which is be metabolized by other organisms.

[Margie Marco]

I must admit, I am puzzled as to what evidence you require to be convinced otherwise. There is the NOAA report, and two scientific groups that went to study the "non-existent" garbage patch this summer. I don't have their peer-reviewed reports yet - is that what you are waiting for?

[Margie Marco]

EDIT: I've also studied ghost photos. That doesn't mean ghosts exist.

Classic Straw Man. How disappointing in a sceptical forum.

[paximperium]

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html
http://seaplexscience.com/

It looks real. I'm convinced.

[GreyICE]

They didn't. They studied garbage in the Pacific.

EDIT: I've also studied ghost photos. That doesn't mean ghosts exist.

I call post and run. This is the last we're seeing of him.

[Margie Marco]

It looks real. I'm convinced.

I appreciate the confirmation. Now, Brian was certainly right to say there have been exaggerations - such as the idea you would "walk across" it, but I hope there will be an updated podcast on this.

[Highly Selassie]

The "garbage patch" as described by the NOAA site certainly exists. As usual, popular media have run with this and are conjuring up images of a vast floating landfill. For example, this story (http://www.kmvt.com/home/ondemand/56127857.html) from some American TV news/entertainment program describes it as "a pile of garage (sic) about the size of Texas", complete with a photo of a landfill. This particular phrase seems to have captured the attention of the credulous masses and is frequently parroted (http://www.google.com/search?q="pile+of+garbage+the+size+of+texas").

[tyr_13]

Classic Straw Man. How disappointing in a sceptical forum.

What I stated is in no way a straw man as I never once suggested that you were arguing for the existence of ghosts. It was merely an example I used to illustrate how one can study something that doesn't actually exist.

As for an update, why is one needed? Brian already discussed studies on the garbage in the Pacific. But the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' as popularly described doesn't exist.

To say it yet again, garbage in the Pacific != 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch'.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of the GPGP than other people are, but the accepted (i.e. popular) definition doesn't appear on this earth. If you are using a different definition (Texas size island of floating garbage), please lay it out for us.

[tyr_13]

I call post and run. This is the last we're seeing of him.

Huh? I've been around for a while GreyICE. Where exactly am I running to?

[GreyICE]

What I stated is in no way a straw man as I never once suggested that you were arguing for the existence of ghosts. It was merely an example I used to illustrate how one can study something that doesn't actually exist.

As for an update, why is one needed? Brian already discussed studies on the garbage in the Pacific. But the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' as popularly described doesn't exist.

To say it yet again, garbage in the Pacific != 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch'.

Perhaps you are using a different definition of the GPGP than other people are, but the accepted (i.e. popular) definition doesn't appear on this earth. If you are using a different definition (Texas size island of floating garbage), please lay it out for us.

Huh? I've been around for a while GreyICE. Where exactly am I running to?
Oh wow, you're actually back. This is amusing.

Okay, so now lets commence with the funny.

Things Tyr admits are true:

'Dead spots' in oceans exist, like the Sargasso Sea
There is lots of garbage in the ocean
Garbage probably does accumulate there
Scientists have been out there and documented the amount and density of garbage


So we're left with... what? That the name doesn't exist?

I can't help feeling that if we were discussing the Big Pacific Garbage Spot you'd be 100% okay with this.

Protip of the Day: One of the reasons for skepticism is that every 'authority' can be wrong. Yes, this includes skeptical podcasts.

[tyr_13]

Oh wow, you're actually back. This is amusing.

I am seriously confused as to why you think I'm a hit and run poster. Do you have me confused with someone else? Do I not update enough?


Okay, so now lets commence with the funny.

Things Tyr admits are true:

This is funny because...


'Dead spots' in oceans exist, like the Sargasso Sea

Cite? The Sargasso Sea isn't a dead spot. I'm sure there are 'dead spots' where relatively little sea life exists, but the Sargasso isn't one of them.

At any rate, I don't recall 'admiting that is true.'


There is lots of garbage in the ocean

A given.


Garbage probably does accumulate there

In the Sargasso? In the ocean? Yea, garbage accumulates in the ocean, and in a different way than it does on land.


Scientists have been out there and documented the amount and density of garbage

Which no one disputes. Well, besides the stories of huge floating island of solid garbage.


So we're left with... what? That the name doesn't exist?

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is supposed to be a solid island of floating garbage twice the size of Texas.


I can't help feeling that if we were discussing the Big Pacific Garbage Spot you'd be 100% okay with this.

No, because it isn't very descriptive. A 'spot' it isn't, as it is a huge region. I wouldn't call Texas a 'spot' either. High concentrations of garbage and plastic particles in the center of the Pacific gyre probably doesn't need a name, but if I had to pick one, I'd say 'concentrations of garbage in the Pacific'.

At any rate, I'd find less problem with calling it 'Pacific Garbage Spots' or 'Big' ones than 'The Great Pacific Garbage Patch'. So much less that I probably wouldn't challenge it. 'The Great Pacific Garbage Patch' already has a faulty claim attached to it, and I'll have no moving of the goalposts on it personally.


Protip of the Day: One of the reasons for skepticism is that every 'authority' can be wrong. Yes, this includes skeptical podcasts.

No, really? I had no idea! [/sarcasm]

Too bad he isn't in this case. "on Skeptoid we focus on the truth of the stories about huge islands of trash floating in the middle of the Pacific. And the truth is there isn't one."

[paximperium]

I can't help feeling that if we were discussing the Big Pacific Garbage Spot you'd be 100% okay with this. I wouldn't at all since that would way more accurate and less hyperbolic.

Protip of the Day: One of the reasons for skepticism is that every 'authority' can be wrong. Yes, this includes skeptical podcasts.
Wrong about what? I've yet to see anything that you've mentioned that contradicts Dunning's episode.

[GreyICE]

Wow, Tyr, really, if I was you, I'd choose to hit and run. It'd save you a lot of embarrassment. But, you're still here. It's pretty funny. Now granted, you've butchered my post (I'm not even sure what you're trying to say), but I'll take a stab at it. It's pretty stupid, so audience, bear with me.

I think you're saying that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch doesn't exist, because TV announcers have described it inaccurately.

Yes, if anyone just sprained their brain, I'm right there with you. A short list of things that would not exist if a prerequisite of existence was TV announcers' proper descriptions:

Evolution
Automobiles
Any sort of gun - any
Global Warming
Republicans
Democrats
England

Yes, as we can see by tuning into the FOX News Channel, TV announcers are good sources of information.

There's 3.5 million tons of trash out there, and it's not very nice.

P.S. Go google "Sargasso Sea." Or just go here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Atlantic_Gyre.png) Dead spot. Get it? Too confusing for you?

[Highly Selassie]

P.S. Go google "Sargasso Sea." Or just go here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Atlantic_Gyre.png) Dead spot. Get it? Too confusing for you?

I think tyr was confused by your use of the term "dead spot". The correct term is "gyre". "Dead spot" refers to anoxic zones of near-surface water (e.g. the area around the Mississippi River Delta).

[tyr_13]

Wow, Tyr, really, if I was you, I'd choose to hit and run. It'd save you a lot of embarrassment. But, you're still here. It's pretty funny. Now granted, you've butchered my post (I'm not even sure what you're trying to say), but I'll take a stab at it. It's pretty stupid, so audience, bear with me.

I think you're saying that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch doesn't exist, because TV announcers have described it inaccurately.

Yes, if anyone just sprained their brain, I'm right there with you. A short list of things that would not exist if a prerequisite of existence was TV announcers' proper descriptions:

Evolution
Automobiles
Any sort of gun - any
Global Warming
Republicans
Democrats
England

Yes, as we can see by tuning into the FOX News Channel, TV announcers are good sources of information.

There's 3.5 million tons of trash out there, and it's not very nice.

P.S. Go google "Sargasso Sea." Or just go here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:North_Atlantic_Gyre.png) Dead spot. Get it? Too confusing for you?

FOX news? TV announcers? You're lucking that I'm not allergic to straw because that is ridiculous. I've never even heard a TV announcer talk about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. My descriptions come from activists, the people who came up with it in the first place.

Have you even read the Skeptoid article on this? I mean, this is the board for it. You haven't refuted anything in it well at all.

As for 'dead spot', Highly Selassie is correct. I assumed you were using the term for a different phenomenon. I do believe that the Sargasso Sea is a gyre. However, why are we even wasting time with this derail that was originally a strawman you made of a argument I never even brought up?

[GreyICE]

FOX news? TV announcers? You're lucking that I'm not allergic to straw because that is ridiculous. I've never even heard a TV announcer talk about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. My descriptions come from activists, the people who came up with it in the first place.

Have you even read the Skeptoid article on this? I mean, this is the board for it. You haven't refuted anything in it well at all.

As for 'dead spot', Highly Selassie is correct. I assumed you were using the term for a different phenomenon. I do believe that the Sargasso Sea is a gyre. However, why are we even wasting time with this derail that was originally a strawman you made of a argument I never even brought up?

You've never even HEARD of a TV announcer talking about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?

The OP:

Chalk up another demerit for the pseudo-History Channel. In the most recent episode of "Life After People," the narrator describes "a floating dump twice the size of Texas" that sits "half way between San Francisco and Hawaii" and "contains 3.5 million tons of nearly-indestructible plastic waste." The voice-over is accompanied by shots of fully-intact plastic bags and bottles densely populating the surface of the water.
I've never even heard a TV announcer talk about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.
Chalk up another demerit for the pseudo-History Channel.
History Channel


Glad to see we're both posting in the same thread.

I repeat: Once again, there's a garbage patch. It's an actual patch, and thus a giant problem, as it's all concentrating in that one... patch. Where the density is much, much higher than in the rest of the ocean.

I dunno if this is a strawman in your book. Apparently. :rolleyes:

[politas]

You've never even HEARD of a TV announcer talking about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?
Tyr_13 said "heard a TV announcer", not "heard of a TV announcer". Clearly, he hasn't seen the show on the History channel referenced by the OP.

[politas]

From my point of view, scattered concentrations of garbage clustered over a vast section of the north Pacific do not make "a patch".

[tyr_13]

I was going to say something, but politas already said both things I wanted to point out.

[GreyICE]

From my point of view, scattered concentrations of garbage clustered over a vast section of the north Pacific do not make "a patch". So your entire quibble is semantic.

Okay, I call it "an area." How's that?


Tyr_13 said "heard a TV announcer", not "heard of a TV announcer". Clearly, he hasn't seen the show on the History channel referenced by the OP.

Okay, so this is falling into the 'I don't see it, but I've heard secondhand sources talking about it, so they're clearly right' category? Or is there some scientific agency talking about it the terms Tyr disavows? Come on, some scientist must have written a paper describing them, if they're such a real issue of 'skepticism.'

Or is it just some TV shows, using their usual hyperbole to make an interesting story?

[tyr_13]

Okay, so this is falling into the 'I don't see it, but I've heard secondhand sources talking about it, so they're clearly right' category? Or is there some scientific agency talking about it the terms Tyr disavows? Come on, some scientist must have written a paper describing them, if they're such a real issue of 'skepticism.'

Or is it just some TV shows, using their usual hyperbole to make an interesting story?

Wouldn't TV presenters, whose ideas I'm not basing my observations on, be secondhand sources? How does that in any way mean, 'so they're clearly right'?

Are you really trying to also say that scientists not using these terms means that I'm wrong to disavow them? Hold on a tick...

[GreyICE]

Wouldn't TV presenters, whose ideas I'm not basing my observations on, be secondhand sources? How does that in any way mean, 'so they're clearly right'?

Are you really trying to also say that scientists not using these terms means that I'm wrong to disavow them? Hold on a tick...

Uh, no. I have never said that. I feel like there's a set of goalposts mounted on a tractor at this point.

I think what you are missing is that the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' does not exist.

Original claim.

Are you really trying to also say that scientists not using these terms means that I'm wrong to disavow them? Hold on a tick...
Brand new claim.

Since scientists DO say they're studying the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it can't be those terms. It was predicted by an NOAA paper, observed by a marine researcher and sea captain, and has since been frequently studied.

If the terms are 'floating island of trash' well, you've dragged the goalposts a wee bit here.

[GreNME]

From my point of view, scattered concentrations of garbage clustered over a vast section of the north Pacific do not make "a patch".

Unfortunately, your own point of view doesn't necessarily determine what the oceanographic scientist population deign to call it. Consensus in the scientific community is against you on this little semantic.

[paximperium]

If the terms are 'floating island of trash' well, you've dragged the goalposts a wee bit here.
I don't see the moving goalpost here. On Dunning's skeptoid episode, the "floating island of trash the size of texas" was the myth he was having issue with.

I don't really see the point of this argument? Patch or gyre or whatever is is called, the facts are that a floating island of trash does not exist. What we have is a collection of plastics and trash located in a central collection area that current scientist is showing to be worst than once thought.

[tyr_13]

Uh, no. I have never said that. I feel like there's a set of goalposts mounted on a tractor at this point.


Original claim.

Brand new claim.

You can't just go around saying that every time I address something you've said that I'm moving goalposts and have it reasonably believed. Addressing what you've said does not equal moving goalpost. My original claim of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as described not existing remains in place.


Since scientists DO say they're studying the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it can't be those terms. It was predicted by an NOAA paper, observed by a marine researcher and sea captain, and has since been frequently studied.

If the terms are 'floating island of trash' well, you've dragged the goalposts a wee bit here.

They studied the claim. They found no giant floating island of trash. They did find unacceptable amounts of pollution, specifically fishing line and small plastic particles.

The terms were always a giant floating island of trash. You can yell, 'moving goalposts' all you want, but they've stayed in the same damn place.

Going back to my example of studying ghosts, if someone says that they saw a ghosts, that it was really a ghost and walked through walls while invisible, would you still call it a ghost after it turns out to be a guy dressed as a ghost? Sure, you could call him that, just as you can call the trash in the Pacific garbage. It doesn't make the original claim true.

However, I'm inclined to agree with paxiperium here. There isn't much of an argument apart from semantics.

[GreyICE]

You can't just go around saying that every time I address something you've said that I'm moving goalposts and have it reasonably believed. Addressing what you've said does not equal moving goalpost. My original claim of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch as described not existing remains in place. That's funny, because it does.

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html

That should be a useful article on it.


Can you confirm that the “garbage patch” exists?

NOAA has been researching marine debris concentration and movement within the STCZ for several years. Marine debris concentrations there definitely exist!


Here's some links to pictures:

http://www.downtoearth.org/earthday/garbage_patch.htm

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/from-twitter/what-is-the-pacific-ocean-garbage-patch

http://www.greenopia.com/SF/news/15526/8-13-2009/The%20Pacific%20Ocean%27s%20Giant%20Garbage%20Patc h%20in%20Pictures



They studied the claim. They found no giant floating island of trash. They did find unacceptable amounts of pollution, specifically fishing line and small plastic particles.

The terms were always a giant floating island of trash. You can yell, 'moving goalposts' all you want, but they've stayed in the same damn place.

Going back to my example of studying ghosts, if someone says that they saw a ghosts, that it was really a ghost and walked through walls while invisible, would you still call it a ghost after it turns out to be a guy dressed as a ghost? Sure, you could call him that, just as you can call the trash in the Pacific garbage. It doesn't make the original claim true.

However, I'm inclined to agree with paxiperium here. There isn't much of an argument apart from semantics.

Okay, I'm going to view this as concession, because we've gone from this:


I think what you are missing is that the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch' does not exist. Yes there is garbage in the Pacific, and yes, it is unacceptable. It is not a great patch. It is nothing like popularly described. It is not different from other garbage in other oceans.

From our original terms:

It is a great patch.

It is described accurately in the media stories I found:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-plastic-sea31-2009aug31,0,377153.story

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/10/messy-pacific/

http://www.mercurynews.com/losgatos/ci_13248686

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdJqjFuqumNiDgkM1wyjZZHH4AfQD9ABJMG01

It is different from other parts of the ocean.


So I agree. We're done. I never argued that there was a giant island of trash twice the size of Texas. But simply speaking, your original post was 100% wrong, and everything since then has been an attempt to justify being 100% wrong.


P.S. "Sure, you could call him that, just as you can call the trash in the Pacific garbage. It doesn't make the original claim true. "

I usually call trash garbage. They're really quite close to synonyms. What on earth did you possibly mean?

[tyr_13]

That's funny, because it does.

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html

That should be a useful article on it.

That article is very useful in that it directly contradicts your claim. You'll notice that they use the term "garbage patch" in quotes. This is like the term 'The Great Pacific Garbage Patch' which it is being 'demystifying'. Besides, your own quote says that, "marine debris concentrations definitely exist", but that isn't want's being argued!

The NOAA site calls these spots 'patches' and the whole phenomena 'a convergence zone'. It does not call it 'The Great Pacific Garbage Patch'.


Here's some links to pictures:

http://www.downtoearth.org/earthday/garbage_patch.htm

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/from-twitter/what-is-the-pacific-ocean-garbage-patch

http://www.greenopia.com/SF/news/15526/8-13-2009/The%20Pacific%20Ocean%27s%20Giant%20Garbage%20Patc h%20in%20Pictures

I'm not about to go through your linkspamming.


Okay, I'm going to view this as concession, because we've gone from this:


Which is still accurate. Whatya know.


From our original terms:

It is a great patch.

No it isn't. It is several separate patches with higher concentrations in the convergence zone.


It is described accurately in the media stories I found:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-plastic-sea31-2009aug31,0,377153.story

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/10/messy-pacific/

http://www.mercurynews.com/losgatos/ci_13248686

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdJqjFuqumNiDgkM1wyjZZHH4AfQD9ABJMG01

What does this have to do with the claim?


It is different from other parts of the ocean.

Really? From the NOAA site-

This is not to say that marine debris in the Atlantic Ocean is not important. There has been research conducted and published on marine debris in the Atlantic, mainly on ingestion in Atlantic species of sea turtles and seabirds or nearshore trawls for plastic particles. Still, there is a paucity of literature on marine debris in the high-seas Atlantic Ocean. Much like in the Pacific there is a North Atlantic Gyre made up of four major currents – North Equatorial, Gulf Stream, North Atlantic, and Canary Current. There is also a North Atlantic Subtropical Convergence Zone (STCZ); however, we currently know of no research on debris concentration within this STCZ.

So the Pacific Convergence Zone (what NOAA actually calls it, not the Great Pacific Garbage Patch), is different because it's in the Pacific.


So I agree. We're done. I never argued that there was a giant island of trash twice the size of Texas. But simply speaking, your original post was 100% wrong, and everything since then has been an attempt to justify being 100% wrong.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch doesn't exist. I have no idea what put such a bug up your ass about what I said. But after all this, I honestly don't care if you think I'm 100% wrong in that belief.


P.S. "Sure, you could call him that, just as you can call the trash in the Pacific garbage. It doesn't make the original claim true. "

I usually call trash garbage. They're really quite close to synonyms. What on earth did you possibly mean?

Right, because trash in the ocean must be the same thing as a Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

If you'll all excuse me, I have to take out the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

[MikeSun5]

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a nice bit of hyperbole for the hardcore environmentalists to shove in the faces of those who choose plastic over paper. :D

Here's another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141615&highlight=great+pacific+garbage+patch) where it was debated alongside global warming. A few decent links...

There's obviously debris in the ocean, but if it was as big as Texas (or whatever the hell else they claim), why can't you look down and see it when you fly to Hawaii?

Garbage, indeed.

And just to answer some questions, here's what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has to say (http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html#4) about the Garbage Patch.

[GreyICE]

Hehe, Tyr won't even read the links anymore. They have pictures, you know.

I'm waiting for him to assign himself 4 internets and a gold star.

Also, the goalposts have moved again. Now to prove it exists, I have to prove that there's no garbage in the entire rest of the ocean, or indeed, any ocean.

Nonsensical, it's a word. Might want to consider how it applies to your posts.

[paximperium]

They have pictures, you know. Those are nice pictures, so?
How does any of your arguments even come close to supporting the original myth of a "floating island of trash the size of Texas" which is the topic of contention? There is trash in the middle of the Pacific Gyre...yeah, people here know. People here don't have any issue with that claim. It appears to be worst than once thought.

I don't see a single intelligent point you are trying to put forth. You seem to be arguing with yourself.
Nonsensical, it's a word. Might want to consider how it applies to your posts.
Look at a mirror greyice, your strawman arguments are exactly that. I don't see anything you've said as relevant except to attack your own straw figurines.

[GreyICE]

Those are nice pictures, so?
How does any of your arguments even come close to supporting the original myth of a "floating island of trash the size of Texas" which is the topic of contention? There is trash in the middle of the Pacific Gyre...yeah, people here know. People here don't have any issue with that claim. It appears to be worst than once thought.

I don't see a single intelligent point you are trying to put forth. You seem to be arguing with yourself.

Look at a mirror greyice, your strawman arguments are exactly that. I don't see anything you've said as relevant except to attack your own straw figurines.

So it, say, does exist.

Which seemed to be a point of contention a page ago...

[politas]

That's funny, because it does.

http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/patch.html

That should be a useful article on it.The FAQ which includes
Can you confirm that the “garbage patch” exists?

NOAA has been researching marine debris concentration and movement within the STCZ for several years. Marine debris concentrations there definitely exist!

If you want to read that answer as "yes", you go ahead. I read that as a "no, but you're asking the wrong question."

Here's some links to pictures:

http://www.downtoearth.org/earthday/garbage_patch.htm

http://www.mahalo.com/answers/from-twitter/what-is-the-pacific-ocean-garbage-patchWell, those first two links are clearly not showing the sort of material that actually collecting in patches inside the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone, which are described as being almost entirely tiny particles. These are exactly the kind of dishonest pictures, actually taken of near coastal garbage accumulations, that Brian was talking about in the episode. I'm not going to bother checking the rest of your links.

[psychictv]

No it isn't. It is several separate patches with higher concentrations in the convergence zone.

So it's not a solid mass of garbage but is more...how do you put it... patchy.

[GreNME]

There's obviously debris in the ocean, but if it was as big as Texas (or whatever the hell else they claim), why can't you look down and see it when you fly to Hawaii?

If greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change, then why can't we see them when we look up in the sky?

[tyr_13]

If greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change, then why can't we see them when we look up in the sky?

I get the point you're trying to make, but we can see greenhouse gasses when we look up in the sky.

[GreNME]

I get the point you're trying to make, but we can see greenhouse gasses when we look up in the sky.

I just went outside my office and looked for them, and all I could see were clouds. They must not exist around here (in Dallas), no?

[tyr_13]

I just went outside my office and looked for them, and all I could see were clouds. They must not exist around here (in Dallas), no?

Clouds are greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas in terms of effect actually.

[Prometheus]

Clouds are not water vapor.

[GreNME]

Clouds are greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas in terms of effect actually.

http://image.grenme.com/thread/NTSA.jpg

Do black holes exist? Please don't tell me you can see them too.

[tyr_13]

http://image.grenme.com/thread/NTSA.jpg

Do black holes exist? Please don't tell me you can see them too.

If you want to be snippy I could point out why the sky is blue, but you'd say that doesn't count either.

Clouds are ice water, I get it. However, even the basic premise mocking MikeSun is flawed because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is often claimed to be a solid floating island of trash. Yes, not being able to actually see it would be a problem then, and is not like CO2 gas in the air.

Yes, the actual problem with plastic particles in the ocean is like greenhouse gasses in the air in that you can't see either one but are still a problem. The faulty sensationalism is not.

Honestly, this is uncharacteristically petty for you GreNME.

[GreNME]

If you want to be snippy I could point out why the sky is blue, but you'd say that doesn't count either.

Clouds are ice water, I get it. However, even the basic premise mocking MikeSun is flawed because the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is often claimed to be a solid floating island of trash. Yes, not being able to actually see it would be a problem then, and is not like CO2 gas in the air.

Yes, the actual problem with plastic particles in the ocean is like greenhouse gasses in the air in that you can't see either one but are still a problem. The faulty sensationalism is not.

Honestly, this is uncharacteristically petty for you GreNME.

Not at all. You're being unnecessarily pedantic. The crux of the issue is that whether being able to see the thing from an airplane or not does negates the probability of its existence. I'm not creating a simile with what I'm saying, I'm commenting on the obvious fallacy of "if I don't see it, then it must not exist" that was used. There is absolutely no scientific argument about whether it exists. There are differences in speculation as to how bad it is in the scientific community. And honestly, compared to the hyperbole of talking heads the scientific opinion on the GPGP carries far more credibility.

I'm fine with approaching the hyperbole of talk show hosts and hollywood types with plenty of skepticism and criticism, but holy crap at least focus on the actual flaw instead of letting that skepticism and criticism escalate to the point where the commentaries are implying (intentionally or not) that it's nothing to be concerned over. If anything, criticism toward the nonsense you might see on television about it should direct the conversation to the actual pollution concerns instead of the ridiculous concern of a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific. I've seen plenty of posts in this thread failing to follow that basic idea and instead focusing on the ridiculous diversion.

I haven't read/listened to the Skeptoid take on it, but I take it from reading this thread that the objection was to the hype. That's fine, but there are real pollution concerns, and not just to the food cycle issues that the plastic brings (which are only the most obvious). The content of foreign materials in such concentrations are affecting the ecological cycles in other, more long-term ways as well. Granted, nature tends to adjust to subtle changes but larger, more drastic changes can throw a whole biological cycle over the tipping point-- a similar (smaller-scale, more easy to measure) change can be viewed with polar bears in the arctic due to thinner and thinner ice throughout the year. However, unlike the polar bear migrations this could have severe impacts on food supplies later on if the abundance of materials showing up in the Pacific isn't addressed. There seems to be a common human political and social tendency to ignore an identified problem as minimal or unimportant until the problem has snowballed into a near-crisis or full-out crisis, and when dealing with something as large-scale and massive as the biological life cycles in the Pacific Ocean (or, similarly, the global climate) waiting until a crisis to encourage management is almost the worst possible choice to make (the worst being ignoring it until the resource is completely lost).

Now, again, not knowing Skeptoid's take on the topic I'd prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt and not assume that there's any tossing of babies with bathwater going on there, but I can say that some of the posts in this thread have come across as outright ridicule for the concern that the statements being criticized have put forth along with the obvious hyperbole for the statements themselves. I'm intentionally not pointing out any posts in particular because (in my opinion and educated guess based on human behavior) putting specific people on the spot is just going to turn the conversation even more defensive and further away from focusing on the topic behind the subject of the podcast. That, to me, doesn't have the ring of critical thinking in motion, and instead has the ring of people looking for something to make fun of-- which is fine, but if that's the case then let's not hide behind a thin veneer of "skepticism" or "critical thinking."

[MikeSun5]

If greenhouse gasses are causing global climate change, then why can't we see them when we look up in the sky?

We can. Ever seen a lame sunset (http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=smog-sunset.htm&url=http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/corfidi/sunset/) before? Greenhouse gasses are a bad example.

I just went outside my office and looked for them, and all I could see were clouds. They must not exist around here (in Dallas), no?

It took me all of 2 seconds to find this (http://www.nowpublic.com/dallas_smog). Seriously, bad example. ;)

You seem to be saying, "just because you can't see the Great Pacific Garbage Patch doesn't mean it doesn't exist." Actually (in the context of the OP) that's exactly what it means. The Garbage Patch we're discussing isn't the "scattered debris field" that the NOAA claims, but rather the one described in the OP.

The OP and the program it mentions describe a "floating dump twice the size of Texas." The OP even mentions fully-intact plastic bags and bottles on the surface.

If there was plastic on the surface of the ocean that spanned over 865,000 square miles (that's 2x Texas)... you really think that nobody could see it from an airplane?? From space? Look at images of the Earth from the Galileo or Mariner 10 spacecrafts. You can't even see a slight discoloration in the Pacific, which should be there. I can see Texas, though...

[MikeSun5]

I'm fine with approaching the hyperbole of talk show hosts and hollywood types with plenty of skepticism and criticism, but holy crap at least focus on the actual flaw instead of letting that skepticism and criticism escalate to the point where the commentaries are implying (intentionally or not) that it's nothing to be concerned over. If anything, criticism toward the nonsense you might see on television about it should direct the conversation to the actual pollution concerns instead of the ridiculous concern of a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific. I've seen plenty of posts in this thread failing to follow that basic idea and instead focusing on the ridiculous diversion.

You make a good point, but do you really think the point of hyperbole was to bring attention to the issue? Or do you suppose it was to get ratings?

Do you think exaggerating facts (or fabricating information altogether) really helps the cause?

[tyr_13]

Not at all. You're being unnecessarily pedantic. The crux of the issue is that whether being able to see the thing from an airplane or not does negates the probability of its existence. I'm not creating a simile with what I'm saying, I'm commenting on the obvious fallacy of "if I don't see it, then it must not exist" that was used. There is absolutely no scientific argument about whether it exists. There are differences in speculation as to how bad it is in the scientific community. And honestly, compared to the hyperbole of talking heads the scientific opinion on the GPGP carries far more credibility.

You mean the Pacific Convergence Zone. That's the real problem that the scientific community is addressing. The GPGP was made up by activists. The "if I don't see it, then it must not exist" was addressed by Mike.


I'm fine with approaching the hyperbole of talk show hosts and hollywood types with plenty of skepticism and criticism, but holy crap at least focus on the actual flaw instead of letting that skepticism and criticism escalate to the point where the commentaries are implying (intentionally or not) that it's nothing to be concerned over. If anything, criticism toward the nonsense you might see on television about it should direct the conversation to the actual pollution concerns instead of the ridiculous concern of a huge plastic island floating in the Pacific. I've seen plenty of posts in this thread failing to follow that basic idea and instead focusing on the ridiculous diversion.

But the entire topic is the hyperbole of activists. Why engage in a debate of something you see as a waste of time? If you don't want to talk about the subject than don't. I however am of the opinion that allowing hype like the GPGP to be propagated without challenge hurts the environmental movement greatly.

We all know there is a huge problem with plastic and other trash in the ocean. That simply isn't the topic.


I haven't read/listened to the Skeptoid take on it, but I take it from reading this thread that the objection was to the hype. That's fine, but there are real pollution concerns, and not just to the food cycle issues that the plastic brings (which are only the most obvious). The content of foreign materials in such concentrations are affecting the ecological cycles in other, more long-term ways as well. Granted, nature tends to adjust to subtle changes but larger, more drastic changes can throw a whole biological cycle over the tipping point-- a similar (smaller-scale, more easy to measure) change can be viewed with polar bears in the arctic due to thinner and thinner ice throughout the year. However, unlike the polar bear migrations this could have severe impacts on food supplies later on if the abundance of materials showing up in the Pacific isn't addressed. There seems to be a common human political and social tendency to ignore an identified problem as minimal or unimportant until the problem has snowballed into a near-crisis or full-out crisis, and when dealing with something as large-scale and massive as the biological life cycles in the Pacific Ocean (or, similarly, the global climate) waiting until a crisis to encourage management is almost the worst possible choice to make (the worst being ignoring it until the resource is completely lost).

Which I don't anyone disagrees with, which is probably why no one is talking about it.


Now, again, not knowing Skeptoid's take on the topic I'd prefer to offer the benefit of the doubt and not assume that there's any tossing of babies with bathwater going on there, but I can say that some of the posts in this thread have come across as outright ridicule for the concern that the statements being criticized have put forth along with the obvious hyperbole for the statements themselves. I'm intentionally not pointing out any posts in particular because (in my opinion and educated guess based on human behavior) putting specific people on the spot is just going to turn the conversation even more defensive and further away from focusing on the topic behind the subject of the podcast. That, to me, doesn't have the ring of critical thinking in motion, and instead has the ring of people looking for something to make fun of-- which is fine, but if that's the case then let's not hide behind a thin veneer of "skepticism" or "critical thinking."

Misinformation hurts the scientific community. What would a lay person think if they were told about the GPGP and then looked on Google Earth? They aren't likely too think 'I bet there's a real problem.' They're likely to think that they've been lied too. Then they're likely to go on about, "can you believe that ******** those scientist think?"

Is it a thin veneer of skepticism or critical thinking to address common misconceptions about evolution? No. Then why is so with environmentalism?

[GreNME]

You make a good point, but do you really think the point of hyperbole was to bring attention to the issue? Or do you suppose it was to get ratings?

Actually, yes. People in the general public have a general indifference when it comes to problems that I described in part in my last post. This isn't just an indifference to studying problems, either-- the public in general and government & corporate organizations in specific typically tend to allocate funding or resources to science-based operations later than others, and scientific funding is typically the first to go when it's budget-crunch time. That (proverbial) "scientific study of a dung beetle's migration habits" or whatever other similar silly-sounding study that pops up periodically in political arguments? Yeah, there's usually a good reason for it, and it usually has to do with better understanding how all the different species in a given ecosystem accomplish a semi-homeostasis (or whether outside influences are upsetting that balance)-- something that could be very technologically useful if we find ways to make use of the knowledge for duplication or direct use as s resource. But even that's an incredible oversimplified explanation that doesn't cover the iceberg's tip as far as point out the usefulness of varied studies. Try going into detail on any given intricate scientific study (for example, the LHC) in a description to the average American, and you're going to see their eyes glaze over or begin wandering-- they tend to have more tangible, more immediate and smaller-scale things that take up their time and energy in their lives, and more often than not they're not going to be interested in changing that at the time you're attempting to explain it. Contrary to the belief I've come across often I don't think this is because people in general are stupid, but I do think that most people have more immediate and mundane things that take up the majority of their time and considerations.

As such, I think that the hyperbole is sometimes useful, as it can be used to jar people off the metaphorical track they were currently thinking on, and can provoke new interest. Yes, I'd agree that hyperbole is way over-used in general, but that has more to do with the massive amount of information barraging our senses practically every waking moment. But in plenty of instances the use of hyperbole as a tool is a very good way to get people thinking. Penn & Teller, James Randi, Harry Houdini, George Carlin, Chris Rock, and even Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have regularly used hyperbole as a tool in their acts in ways that entertained along with provoking thought.

Do you think exaggerating facts (or fabricating information altogether) really helps the cause?

I think that human beings aren't the fictional Vulcans from Star Trek, so it can serve a rhetorical purpose within our thought processes.

[GreNME]

You mean the Pacific Convergence Zone. That's the real problem that the scientific community is addressing. The GPGP was made up by activists. The "if I don't see it, then it must not exist" was addressed by Mike.

Not really. As I already clarified, not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As for the name, you're being pedantic again. The colloquial name is the GPGP, much like Global Warming is a general colloquial term (because "warming" doesn't accurately describe the effects.

But the entire topic is the hyperbole of activists. Why engage in a debate of something you see as a waste of time? If you don't want to talk about the subject than don't. I however am of the opinion that allowing hype like the GPGP to be propagated without challenge hurts the environmental movement greatly.

And I'm saying that makes as much sense in totally dismissing hollywood bringing up global warming because the term itself is exaggerated.

We all know there is a huge problem with plastic and other trash in the ocean. That simply isn't the topic.

No, "we" don't. Go ask fifty people on the street what the "Pacific Convergence Zone" or the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is, and tell me how many respond with something other than wild guesses or an "I don't know."

Which I don't anyone disagrees with, which is probably why no one is talking about it.

See my previous post on this point.

Misinformation hurts the scientific community. What would a lay person think if they were told about the GPGP and then looked on Google Earth? They aren't likely too think 'I bet there's a real problem.' They're likely to think that they've been lied too. Then they're likely to go on about, "can you believe that ******** those scientist think?"

Gee, sounds an awful lot like the "controversy" of global warming.

Is it a thin veneer of skepticism or critical thinking to address common misconceptions about evolution? No. Then why is so with environmentalism?

Addressing misconceptions involves clarification. Much of the derision I spoke of in this thread not only fails to provide clarification, but dismisses entirely the existent issue. Ask a NOAA scientist about the GPGP and they'll answer you by talking about the Pacific Convergence Zone (they even do so on their website). Do you notice the difference between the way the NOAA addresses the issue and the manner in which it's been addressed here? I sure do, and that's what I find disappointing.

[Darth Rotor]

If I may offer some useful scaling information for a sub element of this discussion, there is a Texas-sized garbage patch in Austin, Texas, colloquially known as the Texas Legislature.

This has been an interesting badminton match to watch.

[tyr_13]

Not really. As I already clarified, not seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As for the name, you're being pedantic again. The colloquial name is the GPGP, much like Global Warming is a general colloquial term (because "warming" doesn't accurately describe the effects.

I dislike strongly how the phrase 'Global Warming' is currently used and that is part of the reason I don't want the same thing to happen with the GPGP. Let the way-out there groups like Greenpeace have it. For scientists to use the same term for a similar, but overall very different, phenomenon creates confusion and gives the fringe ammo. They can link and say 'see, just like we said', despite being almost nothing like they said.

I read the NOAA FAQ on 'Is there a GPGP' the same way I see going into a restaurant, asking if they have diet 7-Up, and being told that they have Pepsi Max. Sure, it's still pop, or trash as it were, but that doesn't make them the same thing. It doesn't make it alright to call diet 7-Up Pepsi Max.




And I'm saying that makes as much sense in totally dismissing hollywood bringing up global warming because the term itself is exaggerated.

And many people do just that. It's a problem that is best to avoid.



No, "we" don't. Go ask fifty people on the street what the "Pacific Convergence Zone" or the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" is, and tell me how many respond with something other than wild guesses or an "I don't know."

We aren't on the street. Presumably everyone in this discussion has at least the information presented in the podcast at their disposal. I know you've said you haven't listened to it, but obviously you are aware of the trash problem.




See my previous post on this point.


I see it. I still disagree.



Gee, sounds an awful lot like the "controversy" of global warming.


Yes it does doesn't it? Kind of the point.


Addressing misconceptions involves clarification. Much of the derision I spoke of in this thread not only fails to provide clarification, but dismisses entirely the existent issue. Ask a NOAA scientist about the GPGP and they'll answer you by talking about the Pacific Convergence Zone (they even do so on their website). Do you notice the difference between the way the NOAA addresses the issue and the manner in which it's been addressed here? I sure do, and that's what I find disappointing.

You're criticizing us for not behaving like NOAA. We aren't NOAA. They already did that. The details of the argument are there for everyone to read, and I don't know what clarification you believed was needed. Did we not say there was a huge trash problem? We did. NOAA address the issue in a different way because they still want the attention and deal with general populace. We are on a forum for a podcast. Think about how that might produce a slightly different form of communication than a NOAA FAQ page.

[GreNME]

You're criticizing us for not behaving like NOAA. We aren't NOAA. They already did that. The details of the argument are there for everyone to read, and I don't know what clarification you believed was needed. Did we not say there was a huge trash problem? We did. NOAA address the issue in a different way because they still want the attention and deal with general populace. We are on a forum for a podcast. Think about how that might produce a slightly different form of communication than a NOAA FAQ page.

No, I'm criticizing the excuse of claiming that it's the scientific inaccuracy that is your point of contention while the people who conduct scientific study on the subject make no such objections and simply respond to inquiries on the GPGP as synonymous to the convergence. Essentially, the reason I brought up the NOAA's responses is to point out to those of you being so aggressive in your dismissals that perhaps you doth protest too much. None of you are defending the integrity of the scientific study on the subject, that much is clear, and conversely what's more likely to occur based on the contempt in the responses here is a situation similar to that of global warming-- an attitude so opposed to the colloquial verbiage that it stands to muddy the understanding of what's actually occurring more that the misconceptions that might happen to a few from the pop-culture hyperbole. I'm saying that responding in opposition so strongly and aggressively tends to muddy things at least as much as the perceived misconceptions themselves, particularly when there is a real and demonstrable issue at hand. One only has to look at examples like the "teach the controversy" shell game with evolution in the classroom and the fact that there still exist a loud contingent "see how much colder" and "natural warming cycle" people speaking out against the loads of evidence to the contrary against what most of the world's scientific community has already reached a high degree of consensus on. What I'm arguing is that clarification, not derision or dismissal, is the more effective method of combating misinformation

[tyr_13]

No, I'm criticizing the excuse of claiming that it's the scientific inaccuracy that is your point of contention while the people who conduct scientific study on the subject make no such objections and simply respond to inquiries on the GPGP as synonymous to the convergence.

Well that's not how I read it.


Essentially, the reason I brought up the NOAA's responses is to point out to those of you being so aggressive in your dismissals that perhaps you doth protest too much.

I've been responding directly to GreyICE mostly, who has been so kind as to list things that I must believe. If you count that as 'aggressive dismissal' so be it.


None of you are defending the integrity of the scientific study on the subject, that much is clear, and conversely what's more likely to occur based on the contempt in the responses here is a situation similar to that of global warming-- an attitude so opposed to the colloquial verbiage that it stands to muddy the understanding of what's actually occurring more that the misconceptions that might happen to a few from the pop-culture hyperbole.

You're trying to combat the current attitude about Global Warming. The ironic part is that so am I. Obviously we see the problem with the current attitude about it as arising in two different ways. Thus, we seek to combat it in two different ways.


I'm saying that responding in opposition so strongly and aggressively tends to muddy things at least as much as the perceived misconceptions themselves, particularly when there is a real and demonstrable issue at hand. One only has to look at examples like the "teach the controversy" shell game with evolution in the classroom and the fact that there still exist a loud contingent "see how much colder" and "natural warming cycle" people speaking out against the loads of evidence to the contrary against what most of the world's scientific community has already reached a high degree of consensus on. What I'm arguing is that clarification, not derision or dismissal, is the more effective method of combating misinformation

And I'm saying that if one doesn't strongly and clearly distinguish between stupid hype and what the scientific community is actually saying than you will create a situation where critics of environmental protection can site studies and articles by groups like Greenpeace, and destroy the obviously wrong assertions. It's almost like having a built in straw man for opposition groups to attack. Furthermore, it detracts attention from good science like what NOAA is doing if the hype is allowed to be presented as fact.

That's why I say let the fringe activist groups have the GPGP and science keep working on the problems of convergence zone particulate trash.

[GreNME]

I've been responding directly to GreyICE mostly, who has been so kind as to list things that I must believe. If you count that as 'aggressive dismissal' so be it.

It's not just about you, and in fact the post you first began responding to me on wasn't even addressing you.

[GreyICE]

I've been responding directly to GreyICE mostly, who has been so kind as to list things that I must believe. If you count that as 'aggressive dismissal' so be it.

Or stated outright you believe. But enough about me, you've found a totally different poster to go be wrong at.

[politas]

Look, there's all these pages talking about a Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which show photos of clearly visible floating garbage. That's complete misinformation.

It leads to people ignoring the real problem of tiny, near-invisible debris accumulations when they see that there's nothing like the pictures out in the ocean.

There is not a "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" There is a region which has a high incidence of floating plastic debris. That's a serious issue that should be addressed, and cannot be addressed at all by showing people pictures of completely different things and claiming that's what's out in the middle of the Pacific.

[pipelineaudio]

I just went home to Oahu to get married in August. I asked people how they could be so stupid as to pay for plane tickets when they could simply walk to molokai across the garbage patch.

As my cousins were battling over the top two places in the standup paddle contest thru the molokai channel I asked how much resistance they recieved from the giant garbage patch, but they pretended they didnt know what I was talking about

Its a giant conspiracy, all the people of hawaii are lying and pretending it does not exist! Even my own family is lying to me.

Even my own eyes lied to me! I went out past the reefs to experience this garbage patch but alas, when I stood on the water I sunk.

[Prometheus]

If you want a giant garbage patch island done right, you'll just have to get some billionaire nutjob to build it himself:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1614864/architects-want-to-build-a-habitable-recycled-plastic-island

[John Albert]

Look, there's all these pages talking about a Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which show photos of clearly visible floating garbage. That's complete misinformation.

It leads to people ignoring the real problem of tiny, near-invisible debris accumulations when they see that there's nothing like the pictures out in the ocean.

There is not a "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" There is a region which has a high incidence of floating plastic debris. That's a serious issue that should be addressed, and cannot be addressed at all by showing people pictures of completely different things and claiming that's what's out in the middle of the Pacific.
^ This.