Talk:North Pacific Gyre

message: I have added the following to the talk pages for Rubber duck and North Pacific Gyre.
There is a story about yellow plastic ducks travelling the seas, after being lost from a cargo ship in 1992.
*This link is already in the rubber duck article: .
*This link involves the North Pacific Gyre: .
*Other links to the story include , , , .
I think this story deserves to be documented in the Wikipedia — it is amusing, interesting, notorious, and of some scientific significance. Can anyone find a good article title, and write this?
--Niels Ø 10:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like an excellent addition, but does it need its own article? It could easily be put under the section of this page dealing with famous interactions between flotsam and the gyre. I'd add it myself, but I'm a little snowed under with non-Wiki work at present! Ziggurat 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think the rubber duck story explicitly involves the North Pacific Gyre, so I don't think it belongs here, other than as a reference.--Niels Ø 10:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But see Friendly Floatees!--Niels Ø 20:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubber ducks travelling the seas 

message: ", and  LEGOS in 1997."
"* LEGOs and Other Floating Flotsam (from Miami Herald 5/98)"
I have removed these from the article seeing as they refer to the Atlantic Gyre, not the North Pacific Gyre. If someone creates an article for the Atlantic Gyre, they could definitely go there. Ziggurat 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lego 

message: I am very confused: Is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and the Eastern Garbage patch the same thing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimchar monferno (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific and Eastern Garbage Patch Confusion 

message: The garbage patch should be a seperate article, as it it pretty fascinating and distinct from the ancient natural feature on this page. It is roughly the size of Africa, it occasionally drifts to Hawaii and coats the beaches, and people should be more aware of it's existence. I would like to write it but the link I put in the text GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH redirects to NORTH PAC GYRE. does anyone know how to undo the link? Brallan 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that it should be separated, as the two are so closely linked and information on it fits here with no problems. Perhaps it would be better to add the information to this article instead of starting a new one? In any case, if you want to separate them out (as I said, I'm against it, but it's a free Wikipedia :) you should edit this link: . Regards, Ziggurat 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think they should be separated out. Suppafly 12:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both articles would be very short, and I think most readers would want to read both anyway. I suggest levaing things as they are, at least till the article has grown a good deal longer (if ever that happens).--Niels Ø 13:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: My suggestion would be to simply create separate sections of a single page. It would be repetitive to need to include the natural reasons for the Garbage Patch on it's own page.69.249.105.5 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Pacific Garbage Patch as a separate article 

message: Good stuff. Now, can we get rid of the {citations needed} tag? ↔ Dennywuh 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: Something is very, very wrong with the bit at the top where the "island" is described as being 10 million square miles in size. I don't have the knowledge to make the change myself, but if it is the size of Texas as stated, that's roughly 261,797 sq mi(678,051 square kilometres). Is it possible the "square" was meant to be a "cubed?" I'm still not sure that the numbers add up in that case, but I'm just speculating.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.71.175 (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the two different values have arisen because such a phenomenon is difficult to measure, and the error limits are consequently huge. I have heard estimates ranging from the size of Africa, to continental US, to Texas — Jack (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Hello all.  I removed the sentence "The photodegraded plastic can produce pollutants such as PCBs", and replaced it with the more general "Some plastics photodegrade into other pollutants.", because the sentence as written was either misleading or incorrect.  
Given what I know about plastics degredation as having a background in physics and ecology and having a friend who is an analytical chemist, the only way a degrading plastic would release PCBs was if the PCBs were in the plastic in the first place, which may be true of a limited number of plastics manufactured in the US before 1970.  When I read the sentence initially, I took it to mean "The photodgredation process of a plastic can produce pollutants such as PCBs", which is highly unlikely since PCBs are complex and specific molecules and it would be unlikely for something to degrade into a PCB.  If someone is more keen on the matter, by all means, correct my error.
I would accept "The degredation of plastics sometimes releases pollutants such as PCBs", but would still find this objectionable, because this seems to me like such a tiny effect relative to the other environmental consequences (plankton eating plastic, et c).  PCBs are often used as a poster-child for toxic molecules, and are frequently invoked where they are not relevant as a scare tactic.  As a scientist and an environmentalist, I prefer to keep the facts strait and not try to dazzle people by invoking the horrible affects of PCBs: I would prefer to educate people about the problems associated with plankton toxicity than to convince them that 'plastic waste is bad' based on incorrect or misleading reasoning.  (Besides wikipedia and NPOV and all that)
If PCBs are a large effect or if I've missed something, I'd really appreciate a source here, because I'm interested in following up on this.  I have always assumed that plastics were not a major source of oceanic PCB contamination. dikaiopolis 22:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photodegredation and PCBs 

message: Now we have Global solution to destroy the island of plastic trash in open ocean now and forver.
All materia on the planet Earth came from the space. The human kind get all of its materials from the Earth. Every peace of trash is materia which came from the Earth. The place of the trash is back in to the Earth. The lava volume under the Earts crust is giant natural chemical laboratory which can destroy all kind of stuf - in that case the plastics trash. First the plastics trash must to be colected from huge sea "robot - thash colectior". Plastics trash can be colected using comercial ships to drag, pull, an not very big trash colector behind, and then the colected trash to be deposited in to the open ocean trash colecting platform. Then the plastics trash must to be packed in bales. Then the plastics trash bales must be buryed deep under the sea floor in sea volcanos lava chamber. The lava with its high temperature will compleatly destroy the plastics trash. The trash will go there when he came first - from the center of the Earth. The solution is not expencive. Today open ocean oil platforms "pump out" the oil from the earts crust. Now, such but modified kind of platform will "pump in" the bales of plastics trash in to the Earhts crust, but in to the open ocean lava chamber. The trash will be injected in to the volcano by steel pipe under presure. Just like medical injection. This solution is not expencive and it is simple. International money fund must be created for financind this bold, and smart, future pointed solution. Because the trash is in to neutral ocean waters - many countryes must and will donate to the money fund to destroy the trsh deposits.
The plan for destroying the plastics trash deposits: 1. Colecting the plastics trash; 2. Pack the trash in standard bales; 3. Penetrate the earhts crust till lava chamber is found; 4. Inject the trash by steel pipe in to the lava chamber beneath the open ocean floor; 5. Close the lava chamber;
Keep the Earth - she is our space ship.
:Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The solution of the problem 

message: Looks like the Sydney Morning Herald is cribbing from Wikipedia: The Plastic Killing Fields. "Rather than biodegrading, plastic photodegrades, breaking down in the sunlight into smaller and smaller pieces." That's a line I wrote, here, in 2005. Ziggurat 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  That's my line! 

message: There are two gyres in the northern Pacific, this subtropical one, and the subpolar one.  Should this article be renamed "North Pacific Subtropical Gyre"? -- Beland (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, quite probably. Though, until North Pacific Subpolar Gyre is created, this probably isn't a pressing issue — Jack (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: In the first para of the article, the equivalent of an area of 10 million square miles is given as 34 million square kilometres, when it is in fact 26 million square kilometres. Clicking on the 'square miles' link shows the correct conversion factor. It may be that the square miles answer is wrong, I suppose, and the square km correct!!DonJor (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to area 

message: Now that the Garbage article has been separated, I would like to merge this back to the main article at Gyre. Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tricky to know where the wiki-fenceposts should be as we have Gyre, then the various gyres (only two of which have articles) and then a bunch of sub-gyre units some of which are clearly well known. The limited material available makes it a bit tricky to judge and I am a neophyte in this area. My gut feeling would agree that a Gyre article with the separate gyres as subsections (i.e. merged) and the subgyre bits to have their own pages as they have notability separate from the whole gyre discussion (eg gulf stream etc.). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Just exactly where is it located? From the article: "The North Pacific Gyre, located north of the Pacific Ocean, is one of the five major oceanic gyres. This gyre comprises most of the northern Pacific Ocean". Which is it: "Located north of the Pacific Ocean" or "Comprises most of the northern Pacific Ocean". It can't be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.81.180 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. It actually can be both. For instance, the gyre is located north of the equator, making it "north". The gyre is also big enough to reach all around the pacific (bordered at equator), making it "...most of the northern Pacific Ocean". Hope this answers. Regards. Rehman(+) 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. It may be north of the equator but it isn't "north of the Pacific Ocean". It would be more better to state that it is in the Northern Pacific Ocean because by stating that it is "north of the Pacific Ocean" it is not in the Pacific Ocean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: . You're right. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location confusion 

message: The last 2 lines of this article are attempting to downplay the significance of trash in the gyre. More importantly, more than half the article is about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and really should be removed.
Seriously, don't toss your 2 cents into a related article because you couldn't get it into the main one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.113.161 (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic that the previous editor did not leave a name, when writing about "2 cents".--Mark v1.0 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last two lines are semi-political in nature 

message: — Assignment last updated by Carsonwilliams (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: OEAS540 Biogeochemical Earth