Oceans are Dying

As I feel inspired around nature tonight I realise COVID is a big distraction as all some can think about is smart cities, 5G and politics.

In the article below there is an analogy of red blood cells. COVID is about white blood cells.  Our immunity requires for us to return to homeostasis or balance.

Our natural world is collapsing as we have been unable to change to advance our civilisation.  We can talk sustainability as development but it is never truly sustaining or in balance as we manipulate reality to look like we are making progress for short term goals.  We are not sufficiently in tune with nature to see nature as ourselves so we pretend sustainability, we pretend human health as the titans of industry sink the ship ensuring they have life boats, whilst many do not.

Perhaps in the times ahead great change will indeed arise in response to the realisation of what we are truly losing at this time.  Those who awaken will be the wayshowers for those still unconscious.

I was shocked to learn that 40% of the plankton has died.  That is why oxygen is diminishing.  I felt this in my video “Illuminating the Perpetrators”.   Waking up is essential for all life on earth.

Oceans on the Brink: Dying Plankton, Dead Zones, Acidification

A number of marine diatom cells

By Stephen Leahy

[Originally published Jul 31, 2010 for the Inter Press Service (IPS)]

The oceans are the lifeblood of our planet and plankton its red blood cells. Those vital “red blood cells” have declined more than 40 percent since 1950 and the rate of decline is increasing due to climate change, scientists reported this week. (Update Dec 2016: New analysis show this is an overestimate. See my comment below.)

Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface CO2, and ultimately support all of our fisheries,” said

Boris Worm of Canadas Dalhousie University and one of the worlds leading experts on the global oceans.

“An ocean with less phytoplankton will function differently,” said Worm, the co-author of a new study on plankton published this week in Nature. Plankton are the equivalent of grass, trees and other plants that make land green, says study co-author Marlon Lewis, an oceanographer at Dalhousie.

“It is frightening to realise we have lost nearly half of the oceans’ green plants,” Lewis told IPS.

“It looks like the rate of decline is increasing,” he said.

A large phytoplankton bloom in the Northeast Atlantic -NASA Earth Observatory Collection.

[See also my series of articles on ocean acidification]

Independent environmental journalism now depends on public support, learn more about how this works and how you can help, click here.

Climate change is warming the oceans about 0.2C per decade on average. This warmer water tends to stay on top because it is lighter and essentially sits on top of a layer of colder water. This layering, or stratification, is a problem for light-loving plankton because they can only live in the top 100 to 200 meters.

Eventually they run out of nutrients to feed on unless the cold, deeper waters mix with those near the surface. Ocean stratification has been widely observed in the past decade and is occurring in more and larger areas of the world’s oceans.

Phytoplankton or plankton are very small algae that live near the surface of oceans and form the basis of the marine food web. The unheralded plankton tribe may be the hardest- working group of organisms on the planet. Not only do they feed nearly everything living in the oceans, they absorb and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, they also play a key role in cloud formation.

Plankton give off dimethyl sulfide, a chemical which floats to the ocean’s surface, evaporates, breaking down into sulfur compounds that become the nuclei around which clouds form.

Without plankton, the Earth would be a very different planet. 

The researchers spent three years analysing and synthesising an unprecedented collection of historical and recent oceanographic data involving nearly half a million measurements of the transparency of sea water over the past 120 years. Previously, the “big picture” regarding plankton globally only went as far back as 1997 with the launch of special satellites.

Worm, Lewis and colleague Daniel Boyce found that most phytoplankton declines occurred in polar and tropical regions, and in the open oceans where most phytoplankton production occurs. There was a direct correlation between rising sea surface temperatures and the decline in phytoplankton growth over most of the globe, especially close to the equator, they determined.

“With ocean temperatures increasing we had been wondering what the impacts might be,” Worm told IPS in an interview in Potsdam, Germany.

In addition to the declines in plankton, declines in the numbers of species in tropical waters and increases in the number of species in temperate waters have been observed, he said. As on land, some marine species are exquisitely sensitive to temperature and will move if a region becomes too warm.

Another related mega-change in the oceans is the dramatic increase in number and size of dead zones – areas too low in oxygen to support life. Fertiliser and sewage run-off cause huge growth of plankton, which then quickly die and are consumed by bacteria that deplete waters of oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico has a 22,000 square kilometre dead zone every spring due to run-off from the Mississippi River.

Ocean stratification, where warm water sits firmly on top of cold, nutrient-rich water, also creates dead zones and lowers the overall productivity of the oceans, says Worm. Such dead zones were rare 40 years ago but now number several hundred. Without urgent action, climate change will continue to warm oceans, increasing stratification and producing larger and more dead zones with a major impact on future fisheries, a 2009 study in Nature Geoscience warned.

It will take a thousand years for the oceans to cool down, so it is imperative to pull the emergency brake on global warming emissions, the study concluded.

Another pressing reason to pull the emergency brake is the increasing acidification of oceans due to human emissions of CO2. Each day, the oceans absorb 30 million tonnes of CO2, gradually and inevitably increasing their acidity, which in turn reduces the amounts of calcium carbonate available to some plankton and other species that need it to form their shells and skeletons.

There is no controversy about this basic chemistry. The only debate is about the extent and timing of the impacts. Recent research in the Arctic previously reported by IPS suggests that within 10 years, parts of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic for most species.

Lewis agreed acidification is a major threat to some species of plankton but said their study was not able to specifically identify the impacts. 

The only way to reduce ocean acidification is with substantial cuts in emissions of CO2, say experts like Australia’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.

Hoegh-Guldberg co-authored a review of dozens of studies on the state of the oceans in Science magazine Jun. 18. It paints a terrifying picture of the global oceans rapidly sliding towards a “fundamental and irreversible ecological transformation” not seen in millions of years.

“We need to cut global emissions by five percent per annum starting right now,” he writes along with co-author John Bruno, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina.

Inaction is not an option given the huge consequences, but fortunately we already know what to do, they say. National support for creating competitive renewable energy supplies and halting deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia would result in major reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Protecting and restoring coastal vegetation, including mangroves, salt marsh and sea grasses – dubbed “blue carbon” – would maintain or increase the ability of marine ecosystems to capture and permanently store carbon dioxide.

“Furthermore, all of these solutions have huge benefits for people and biodiversity,” they conclude.

Earth’s Oxygen Levels Are Declining

In the public interest.

I’ve kept the small ad for Elon Musk in as my feeling was that going to Mars does not solve the damage done to earth.  Jumping ship is not facing what has been done in the name of self interest.  The economic juggernaut has destroyed earth systems with impunity and no consequence as money talks. Our inherent imbalance has not been resolved as those in positions of power deny their culpability or are unable to change.  Indeed they are not listening to voices that propose another world is possible outside of economics.  The challenge they face is they do not want to give up the wealth and status. So they continue on trajectories that do not restore balance as they have not found peace within.  The oxygen levels are indeed decreasing as I have intuited and this impacts all sentient beings.

Earth’s Oxygen Levels Are Declining And Scientists Don’t Know Why

Trevor Nace

This article is more than 3 years old.

A glacier looms in Antarctica (Credit: Zastavki.com)

A new study shows Earth’s oxygen levels continue to decline, a phenomena that has puzzled scientists. The study, published in Science by Princeton University professor Daniel Stolper, presents data measured from small air bubbles trapped in ice on Greenland and Antarctica.

Air bubbles trapped within ice provides clues to the atmospheric composition at the time of “deposition” and can be analyzed for paleo-oxygen levels. The study finds that over the past 800,000 years the amount of oxygen found in the atmosphere has decreased by 0.7% and continues to decline.

Fortunately, the 0.7% decline is not something that will or has caused significant problems for life on Earth. An equivalent decrease in oxygen content would accompany a change in elevation from sea level to 100 meters above sea level.

Why Are Oxygen Levels Declining?

As with most things on Earth, oxygen levels are controlled by complex global systems that tend to regulate and dampen large swings from the mean. This presents a difficult task to pinpoint why exactly oxygen levels have been declining for almost a million years. However, scientists have several hypotheses to explain the steady and persistent decline.

But what caused the increase in global erosion rates? The key is believed to lie in the rapid glacial to interglacial periods that dominate the past several million years. As seen in the figure below, the Earth has witnessed dramatic fluctuations in global temperature the past million years. Growth and retreat of continental ice sheets associated with glacial cycles is an incredibly efficient and large-scale mechanism to erode mountains. Note the red dots to the far right of the figure representing projected temperatures in 2050 and 2100, their historical significance, and unprecedented pace of increase.

Global average temperature estimates for the last 540 million years. Note the time scale changes along the x-axis (Credit: Wikipedia.org)

An alternative hypothesis is tied to the global on-average cooling seen for the past 56 million years since the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). This prolonged cooling period has cooled the global oceans, allowing them to hold more dissolved oxygen through increased solubility. Similar to how a Coke goes flat quicker when warmed up compared to kept in the fridge, liquids can hold more dissolved gas when cooler. This may have led to progressively more oxygen dissolved into the Earth’s oceans and be responsible for the gradual decline in atmospheric concentrations.

As you can imagine, these two hypotheses would not operate in a vacuum and are interconnected to many other global systems from biodiversity to volcanic activity. Thus the incredibly difficult task of piecing together Earth’s history and the processes that control it.

Follow me on Twitter.

Should Heads of State be Publicly Questioned?

What is interesting about this video is how the politician keeps on script but doesn’t answer.  I feel this is the problem we are facing is the scripted politicians who are skilled at avoiding questions which is clearly not in the public interest.

Perhaps we should have public trials on line so we can listen and watch how they respond to direct questioning.  The avoidance, scripted lines and confusion around truth is what renders society powerless as they appear puppets to others.  

The public feel they are in a rock and a hard place when politicians are corrupt, the judiciary are corrupt and regulators are weakened.  They awaken to the fact their voices are just air.  That their views are ignored and only those considered of status are worthy of being heard.  

I am trained in conflict resolution and I can see the disconnect.  I can see the PR spin, I can see the propaganda, I can see the misinformation and I am just astounded at the moral free zone we find ourselves in today where people just exploit with impunity.  

I am not cynical but I have wised up to the deception.  I no longer believe in authority as I can see they have lost their way.  Many are not natural leaders they are selected through character flaws (I suspect) and intelligence agencies compromise them through pedophilia and then they control them as mouthpieces.  I am not stating this for the person in the video, as I don’t know him.  However, this is the flow of consciousness that has come from watching the entertainment which has nothing to do with true representation and responsibility.  I am awaiting real leaders.  Those who are real are the ones who are principles and they empower others rather than take power and become seduced by power.  

They do emerge in times like these, so it will be interesting to see who the real heroes of our world are. Of course 7 billion people are all potential heroes if they all stand up together as one Voice. Imagine that. Game over.

I’d be interested to know what the opportunity/cost of:

deception, lies, corruption, corrupt politicians, deliberate delays, cutting funding, public-private partnerships, infrastructure, foreign agenda’s, ideologies that self serve rather than ensure all are served equally. 

The alleged pandemic has revealed to me what can be done quickly and how much they spend and change society.  I know homelessness could have been ended a long time ago, it was clearly a choice with a care factor of zero.  I see the clear disconnect when money (profit) is the objective and outcome. I see that clearly.

Under universal law what you do to another returns to the self.  Life is circular. We only fool ourselves as we believe we are superior.  It is self deception coming from deep inferiority which is underlying this (not enough). That is the seed of greed that needs fame, prestige, status and superiority to feel successful rather than just living one’s life feeling happy with who we become.  Yet all are equal, with equal capacity for love or hate.  We all get to choose who we become.  This is the true meaning of equal opportunity.  The cost of choosing corruption is the world we see today.  It is a big price all will pay for the treadmill and fear based culture carefully constructed around true freedom.  

These times are that watershed for a better future as one by one each awakens to their own lie they believed was truth.  It will be both extremely depressing and enlightening.  We have to go through the grief of letting go of what was to open to what will become.  There is no going back.  One do closes another door opens.

This video is the reason we want to close the door on the past.






The Pandemic of Air Pollution Causes 7 Million Deaths +

9 out of 10 people breathe polluted air.

1/4 deaths heart disease, stroke and lung disease caused by air pollution

women and children the most at risk

the poorest people are at risk

4.2 million exposure to outer pollution, what is done at the urban level

3.8 million deaths relying on polluting fuels

Air pollution causing ‘pandemic,’ shaving ‘nearly three years’ from people’s lives

A new study says air pollution has become a “pandemic” and is cutting “nearly three years” off people’s lives.

The research, published in the scientific journal Cardiovascular Research, notes that pollution is more responsible for shortening people’s lives than “wars and other forms of violence,” as well as “parasitic and vector-born diseases such as malaria, HIV/AIDS and smoking.”

“It is remarkable that both the number of deaths and the loss in life expectancy from air pollution rival the effect of tobacco smoking and are much higher than other causes of death,” the study’s lead author, Jos Lelieveld, said in a statement. “Air pollution exceeds malaria as a global cause of premature death by a factor of 19; it exceeds violence by a factor of 16, HIV/AIDS by a factor of 9, alcohol by a factor of 45, and drug abuse by a factor of 60.”

FILE - In this Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2018 file photo, a bird flies past as smoke emits from the chimneys of Serbia's main coal-fired power station near Kostolac, Serbia.  (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic, File)

FILE – In this Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2018 file photo, a bird flies past as smoke emits from the chimneys of Serbia’s main coal-fired power station near Kostolac, Serbia.  (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic, File)


The researchers used a new method of modeling the various sources of air pollution and their effect on death rates and estimated that an extra 8.8 million died prematurely in 2015, the equivalent of shortening the lives of everyone around the globe by “nearly three years.”placeholder

Smoking and HIV kill 7.2 million and 1 million lives every year, respectively, reducing people’s life spans by 2.2 and 0.7 years, according to the data. Malaria kills approximately 600,000 people every year, shortening life spans by 0.6 years. Violence, including wars, accounts for 530,000 deaths annually.

The study’s co-author, Thomas Münzel, said that the results of the study show that the pollution problem is truly a global issue and an “air pollution pandemic.”

“Policy-makers and the medical community should be paying much more attention to this,” Münzel added. “Both air pollution and smoking are preventable, but over the past decades much less attention has been paid to air pollution than to smoking, especially among cardiologists.”



“It is important that policy-makers and the medical community realize that air pollution is an important risk factor for heart and blood vessel disease,” Münzel continued. “It should be included as risk factor, along with smoking, diabetes and high blood pressure and cholesterol, in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association on the prevention of acute and chronic heart syndromes and heart failure.”

In June 2019, Environmental Protection Agency data analyzed by the Associated Press noted that there were more polluted air days in the first two years of the Trump administration than any of the four years prior.

Five hundred and thirty-two American metro areas reported a total of 4,134 days in 2018 when the official air quality index passed 100, which means it is unhealthy for people with heart and lung disease, the elderly and the very young. That’s about 15 percent more bad air days per city than the average for 2013 to 2016, America’s clean air heyday.

About 100,000 Americans each year die prematurely because of polluted air, studies show.placeholder

Despite the bleak findings of the study, not all hope is lost. The researchers found that if fossil fuel emissions were removed, the average life expectancy around the world would rise by slightly more than a year. If all human-linked emissions were removed, that would result in a two-year increase in global average life expectancy.

Satellite imagery from NASA and the European Space Agency spotted an enormous decline in airborne pollutants, specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2), in large areas of China, due in large part to shuttering factories in an effort to curb the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Is COVID-19 a Hazard or a Risk or Not?

It is an interesting journey through Risk management to determine what are hazards what are risks.  So for example smoking can be a health hazard where there is a risk of cancer. This risk can be likely or unlikely depending on how much you smoke, your physical condition and disposition of getting cancer (in the family).

The mental health issues arising from COVID-19 communications can express that COVID-19 is a high risk with high likelihood of catching or it could be a low risk with low likelihood of catching depending on where you live, your age, occupation and so on.

However, perceptions can make it high risk/high likelihood if information is conveying warnings without balance and mitigation strategies that include wellbeing given the mental health issues are a major factor in illness.  Some may argue that unresolved issues from the past may have a baring on future illness.  Disease or dis-ease is a truism. So there are philosophical approaches to risk.  Awareness raising helps us to notice and take precautions to ensure safety and wellbeing.

So let’s look at hazard. 


Hazard: the potential to cause harm. 

Risk: likelihood of harm in defined circumstances.

According to the PM on advice from the Chief Medical Officer COVID-19 is a mild virus that won’t kill the majority.  Therefore, for the majority it has a low potential to cause harm.

In relation to risk.  COVID-19 has a low risk hazard for the majority that is unlikely to cause harm given health and 93% recovery rate.

If we look at the elderly and immune compromised.

The potential to cause harm to the elderly and those with compromised immune systems who come into contact with someone with COVID-19 has the potential to cause harm.  It is a hazard.

Risk and likelihood of harm: 

Now if the vulnerable person doesn’t come into contact as the spread is elsewhere and all practice physical distancing they are unlikely to be in physical contact with a COVID-19 case. Then the risk or likelihood of harm is low.

However, if there is a outbreak and people with symptoms are around. Then the likelihood of harm increases the risk of contagion.  In this defined circumstance of a outbreak in a defined geographic space (small space the higher), then it could be a high risk of causing harm.

So it depends on whether it can cause harm and the likelihood of harm (risk).

This can be impacted by the perception of risk given media coverage.  Communications must be very carefully configured to ensure there is not mis-perceptions.  Facemasks for example need to be evaluated for hazard and risk in respect of the fabric blocking a disease coupled with the hazard (potential harm) and the likelihood of risk.  Is COVID-19 airborne everywhere where all must wear masks (assuming they can filter a virus out) or do the masks add to the perception that it is everywhere and that everyone saliently is showing consent to the existence of COVID-19 by visibly wearing a mask as a sign of compliance.   Others notice and copy thinking it must be true.  So we have to be discerning about the equipment, why it is needed, are the claims true scientifically and medically or is it part of a media campaign with other desired outcomes?

The same assessment could be made for possible alternative cures such as:

Chlorine Dioxide
Vitamin C

Are these alternatives, a hazard?
Are these alternatives, a risk?

If not, then it can do no harm trying them if they work, which doctors claim they do? Why block them?  We have to assess the potential harm. 
I wonder how powerful is the placebo effect?

When people get focused on a virus they may forget the other areas of potential hazard and risk:

Toxic Cultures
Perception of danger
Social Isolation
Fear based division (community policing)
No future

These need to be evaluated as part of the mix of potential hazards and risks.

Another area of focus could be vaccines.  Specifically the DNA medicines given traditional vaccines are not likely to be used given the novel virus.  Some say this virus is natural, others say it is lab based. The latter means there has been inserts into the DNA material to express certain characteristics of disease – respiratory, headaches, shortness of breath.  If it is a designer virus then vaccine manufacturers have to produce a patented response which may not be a cure but could be an inhibitor.  I say patented as they will definitely patent the vaccine to ensure superordinate profits. This is a huge global market.

So, what sort of hazard or risk do they pose?

Vaccine injuries – what types, cause harm and likelihood?

Vaccine deaths – cause harm, likelihood?

Nano particles in the vaccines – cause harm, likelihood?

Bypassing animal trials – cause harm, likelihood?

Fast tracking vaccines – cause harm, likelihood?

DNA damage/changes – cause harm, likelihood?

GMO damage to the environment – cause harm, likelihood?
(biological life is recycled in earth systems)

Risk of depopulation  – cause harm, likelihood?

If the risk are indeterminate given not enough research, evidence based studies, industry biased studies or political expediency given profits (or corruption), mis-information, then there has to be an assessment about the potential harm and likelihood of risk.  

Therefore, before any mandating of vaccines the public must be fully informed clearly of the hazards and risk by consenting to allow vaccines to be injected given Big Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology companies are involved in formulating vaccines, editing/adding gene sequences and changing possible molecular structures. This is a risk according to some doctors, scientists and virologists.

The Precautionary Principle must be followed if there is doubt and uncertainty as more lives might be lost if the vaccines are faulty given this is a global initiative by a few companies. The profit incentive must be balanced by public health and wellbeing.  Always a tension in commercial ventures and is why regulators who are neutral are needed to ensure fair play and the public interest.

Bare in mind that DDT was seen as safe when introduced into the environment, GMOs are considered safe, smoking was considered safe by doctors. So we have to be very careful as we don’t always get it right. So group think can lull us into a false sense of “right” but healthy scepticism can ensure we keep asking questions.  This is why propaganda and misinformation on all sides can shutdown important questions that may save life, this is particularly the case when agendas are at play.  So we have to weigh up risks based on past behaviour and likely future behaviour and who is involved.

If these are not taken into account then legal action or class actions can be an outcome increasing the risk to those in decision making positions and responsible for causing the hazard and risk.