Researchers make stunning discoveries during 70-day expedition in Antarctica: 'Crossing the Atlantic'
Among their discoveries were vast areas of melting ice and microplastics in seawater and glacial ice.
As Mongabay shared, the researchers set sail on the Russian icebreaker, Akademik Tryoshnikov. They came from seven countries and traveled approximately 18,000 miles along Antarctica's coast.
The researchers collected snow, ice, and seawater samples to study microbial life changes and how warming temperatures impact Antarctic inhabitants.
In addition to melting ice and microplastics, they observed decreased ocean salinity and how Antarctica receives ash-filled air from Amazon forest fires due to atmospheric "rivers."
The Antarctic and Amazon regions share an atmospheric corridor, in which air masses and large volumes of water vapor move between them. These regional exchanges can result in cyclones, rain, and the acceleration of sea ice melt.
Mission coordinator and climatologist Venisse Schossler said, "We saw that there was a heat wave in Brazil associated with a mass of hot, humid air coming from the Amazon, crossing the Atlantic, and reaching Antarctica.
Studies like this one demonstrate the interconnectedness of our planet and how extreme weather in one place affects conditions far away.
Antarctica is a crucial place of study because the continent is a vital climate regulator that redistributes heat absorbed around the equator. Antarctica is essential in balancing our planet's thermal energy and energy regulation processes that impact global climate.
Such investigations show the general public the real and disturbing impact of Earth's overheating with measured data about glacial retreat and sea ice loss.
Do you think America is in a housing crisis?
Definitely
Not sure
No way
Only in some cities
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
The researchers noted that reduced sea ice leads to decreased production of krill, a miniature shrimp-like species that's the basis of the Antarctic fauna food chain.
Numerous scientific and research groups are paying attention to temperature spikes in Antarctica and how melting glaciers affect ice shelf stability.
What's happening in Antarctica is connected to extreme weather all over the planet and not isolated to only a sparsely populated, far-away place.
Fortunately, efforts are underway to protect the Antarctic region and address the harmful pollution and rising temperatures leading to habitat changes and biodiversity losses.
Governments are collaborating to strengthen climate agreements to address rapid sea ice melt and changing global climate patterns.
On an individual scale, you can contribute to a cooler, cleaner future by reducing your energy usage and relying on clean energy sources to power your home and transportation.
When widely embraced, small, collective actions add up to mitigate the impacts on vulnerable regions like Antarctica.
For example, installing solar panels can save you money on utility bills, make your home more resilient to extreme weather, and curb household pollution. Homeowners are saving up to $10,000 on solar installations using EnergySage's free tool to compare quotes from trusted local installers.
You can inspire collective action in your own community and social circle by talking with people you know about what's happening in the Antarctic. Educating yourself and others about critical climate issues is an excellent first step in inspiring advocacy and policy changes to protect our planet.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
How sensationalized headlines about 'brain plastic' are undermining trust in safe, sustainable materials
Earlier this year, a terrifying claim swept headlines and social media: "You have a spoon's worth of plastic in your brain." The warning, based on a study published in Nature Medicine, set off a cultural firestorm, dominating news cycles, TikToks and dinner table conversations. It was the kind of phrase designed to go viral, and it did. But here's what didn't go viral: the follow-up. Experts later flagged the study for a critical flaw: To quantify microplastics in samples, the study relied on equipment with limitations in distinguishing plastics from other materials, leading to potential false positives. An independent expert noted: "The method is lauded for its ability to detect smaller micro- and nanoplastics than other methods can, but it will give you a lot of false positives if you do not adequately remove biological material from the sample. Most of the presumed plastic they found is polyethylene, which to me really indicates that they didn't really clean up their samples properly." The nuance, though important, didn't make the headlines. This highlights a broader issue: there's no globally standardized methods for the collection, detection and quantification of microplastics. Some microplastics studies may fail to identify whether the particle is a mineral, an organic material or something else, yet still misidentify them and claim they are microplastics. And without standardized methodologies for identifying and quantifying the different types of particles, it is difficult to generate reliable data and assess their true impact. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states, "While there are many studies on microplastics in food, the current state of science is limited in its ability to inform regulatory risk assessment… due to several factors, including a continued lack of standardized definitions, reference materials, sample collection and preparation procedures, and appropriate quality controls, to name a few." Yet recent coverage has prioritized drama over scientific nuance, creating confusion rather than clarity. Let's be clear: microplastics are real. Everyday life, from tire dust to synthetic fibers, produces these particles. They're in the environment and potentially our bodies. But presence alone doesn't constitute a crisis. The real question is what this means for human health and how to respond responsibly. The FDA has made clear that "current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that levels of microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health." When we treat preliminary research as settled science – or worse, viral clickbait – we lose the ability to make smart decisions. This is particularly true in the case of materials like PET, the plastic used in food packaging, water bottles and medical supplies. PET is among the safest, most rigorously tested plastics, approved globally by regulators including the FDA and EFSA. Why is this misinformation dangerous? Because it undermines trust in safe and sustainable materials like PET, which is both lightweight and recyclable. According to life cycle assessments (LCA), a PET bottle produces significantly lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than alternative containers like glass bottles or aluminum cans, and requires less energy to produce. It enables safe hydration, reduces food waste and makes modern healthcare possible. Yet consumers increasingly question PET, not because science changed, but because headlines did. That disconnect carries real-world consequences. This is exactly why it is so important for our regulatory agencies to step up and address the lack of standardization in microplastics research and to develop methods and standards that allow for consistent and comparable results in research. Only then will we be able to have a more disciplined public conversation around microplastics that we can be confident is based on dependable evidence, and which stops the confusion of comparing apples to oranges. None of this is to dismiss the broader challenge of plastic pollution. Our industry – and society – must invest in better systems: smarter product design, stronger recycling infrastructure and more rigorous scientific research. But meaningful progress starts with clarity, not confusion. The public deserves facts. Not just headlines.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Common farm chemicals may be heralding an ‘insect apocalypse'
If you purchase an independently reviewed product or service through a link on our website, BGR may receive an affiliate commission. Fruits and vegetables are often sprayed with fungicides to keep mold at bay. However, new research suggests one of these chemicals could be quietly harming insects that are critical to healthy ecosystems and could lead to an insect apocalypse. According to a study from Macquarie University, one of the world's most widely used fungicides, chlorothalonil, drastically reduces insect fertility. It does so even at the lowest levels commonly found on produce. Today's Top Deals XGIMI Prime Day deals feature the new MoGo 4 and up to 42% off smart projectors Best deals: Tech, laptops, TVs, and more sales Best Ring Video Doorbell deals During testing and research, scientists exposed fruit flies to real-world doses of the chemical and found that their egg production dropped by over a third. The effect wasn't something that happened slowly over time, either. Instead, it was immediate and significant, the statement says, affecting both male and female fertility. And this isn't an effect like when researchers got fruit flies hooked on cocaine, either. This is actually life threatening for the population. And while that might sound useful, especially considering how annoying fruit flies can be when they settle down a plant in your home, it's a big deal for more than just flies. Insects like bees, flies, and other pollinators are crucial for growing the food we eat. If their populations decline, it could disrupt pollination and harm crops in the long run. This study is just the latest in a growing list of research documenting steep drops in insect populations around the world, which some scientists have heralded as an impending insect apocalypse. What's especially concerning is that this fungicide isn't just used when there's a risk of infection. It's often applied preventatively, when no disease is present in the crops. While it's true that chlorothalonil is banned in the European Union, it remains widely used in places like Australia, where it's applied to everything from vineyards to farms that harvest berries. Despite its popularity, chlorothalonil hasn't been studied under the microscope all that much. Fewer than 25 published studies have explored its impact on insects, so this new study could be a massive piece of a case against the future usage of this chemical. This also points to a major gap in how we evaluate the environmental effects of common pesticides we rely on. The researchers behind the study suggest rethinking how often chlorothalonil is applied. By spacing out treatments, farmers could give insect populations time to recover between sprays. While not the best outcome by any means, it would at least mitigate some of the damage we're doing to the insect populations, though how long it will take for them to recover between sprays would need to be determined, too. More Top Deals Memorial Day security camera deals: Reolink's unbeatable sale has prices from $29.98 See the
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Climate is always changing, with or without humans burning fossil fuels
In your Sunday, June 29 VOP section, a writer claims that our current heat wave is partly due to climate change caused by burning fossil fuels. It is a fact that Earth's climate is changing, has always changed and will continue to change, with or without human activities like the burning of fossil fuels. For example, recall that the northern United States was once covered by a very thick glacier. It melted long before the Industrial Revolution and widespread use of fossil fuels. It is also a fact that Earth's climate variations closely follow well-known solar cycles. Most scientists won't tell you this because it would dry up the climate hysteria gravy train. Some time in the future, people will be praying for more heat, because Earth will begin to cool again! The best we can do is adapt to the changes and quit wasting money trying to control them. Robert Umbarger, Munroe Falls This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Climate is always changing, with or without humans | Letter
