The presence of tiny plastics in clouds risks the contamination of ‘everything we eat and drink’, researchers say.
Microplastics have been discovered in clouds, where scientists say they could be contributing to climate change.
Researchers found several types of polymers and rubber in the water in cloud water surrounding Mount Fuji, Japan’s biggest mountain, and Mount Ōyama.
Their study, published in the journal Environmental Chemical Letters, joins a growing body of evidence showing that plastic pollution has infiltrated most ecosystems on Earth.
Fragments of plastic smaller than 5mm (around the size of a sesame seed) have been found in the furthest reaches of the planet and most intimate parts of the human body, including the blood, lungs, and placentas of pregnant women.
"To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to detect airborne microplastics in cloud water in both the free troposphere and atmospheric boundary layer,” the scientists wrote.
Yeah but if we do by accident everywhere on earth continuously, it probably isn’t going to be like… a net positive.
When’s they say “it might modify the climate”, it means that we need to study it more to understand it better. Clouds determine precipitation and can cause heating or cooling depending on specific factors. It could be a net positive, or it could (far more likely) be a net negative. What makes climate change so bad is not so much based on temperature as it is based on change. Any change significantly affects crop yields, precipitation, and biodiversity. Whether the planet was getting hotter or colder, plenty of plants, humans, and other animals will die in the process.
Though tiny, aerosols have an oversized influence on climate. The murk of anthropogenic aerosols in the sky has, overall, had a dramatic cooling effect since the Industrial Revolution (without them, global warming would be 30 to 50 percent greater than it is today). And they have more sway on extreme weather than greenhouse gases do: a world warmed by removing aerosols would have more floods and droughts, for example, than a world warmed the same amount by CO2.
Revell and her colleagues took a stab at trying to model how microplastics might affect temperature by either reflecting or absorbing sunlight, a calculation of what’s known as “radiative forcing.” For simplicity’s sake, they assumed that plastic is always clear, even though that’s not true (and darker material tends to absorb more sunlight), and that the global concentration is uniformly one particle per cubic meter, which is on the order of 1,000 times lower than concentrations measured in, say, London.
With those assumptions, Revell found that plastic’s direct impact on radiative forcing is “so small as to be insignificant.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/plastic-waste-atmosphere-climate-weather