The oceans are dying

Red tide at Bondi.
Our entire atmosphere is based on the oceans. When they change it is impossible that there will be no effect on life on Earth.This will start with a post that has been circulating the Net. It is legitimate as you can tell from the hyperlinks. At the end I give evidence to what is causing it, but also present some other worrying facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Millions of fish are suddenly dying all over the planet.  In fact, there have been dozens of mass fish death events reported in the past month alone.  So why is this happening?  Why are fish dying in unprecedented numbers all over the world?  When more than six tons of fish died in Marina Del Ray over the weekend, it made headlines all over the United States.  But the truth is that what just happened off the southern California coast is just the tip of the iceberg.  In 2014, mass fish die-offs have pretty much become a daily event globally.  Individually, each event could perhaps be dismissed as an anomaly, but as you will see below when they are all put together into one list it truly is rather stunning.  So is there a reason why so many fish are dying?  Is there something that connects these mass fish death events?  Has something about our environment changed?  The following are just a few examples of the mass fish death reports that have been coming in day after day from all over the globe. Scroll to the end for my take on it…

*In April, 500,000 carp were found “floating belly-up in Kentucky’s Cumberland River“.

*Over the weekend, thousands upon thousands of fish died just off the southern California coastline…

California Fish and Wildlife workers are still scooping dead sea life from the surface of the harbor Monday after thousands of dead anchovies, stingrays and even an octopus died and floated up over the weekend.

So far officials have cleaned up 6 tons of dead fish, and they still have a long way to go.

*The death of approximately 35,000 fish up in Minnesota is being blamed on a “lack of oxygen“.

*The recent die off of thousands of fish in the Shark River near Belmar, New Jersey is also being blamed on “oxygen depletion“.

*Officials in Menifee, California are still trying to figure out what caused the death of thousands of fish in Menifee Lake a few weeks ago…

Authorities continued testing the water in Menifee Lake Friday after thousands of dead fish have been seen floating since last weekend.

Menifee city officials first heard reports Saturday of floating fish at the lake, which is located on private property about a half-mile east of the 215 Freeway.

*In the Gulf of Mexico, dolphins and sea turtles are dying “in record numbers“.

*Maryland officials are still puzzled by the death of 7,000 Atlantic menhaden last month…

State environmental scientists are investigating the cause of a fish kill that left about 7,000 dead Atlantic menhaden in waters that include the Inner Harbor and Fells Point.

Jay Apperson, spokesman for the Maryland Department of the Environment, said that biologists went by boat on Tuesday to the area of Monday’s fish kill. He says the area extended from the mouth of the Patapsco River, up the Baltimore Harbor to Fells Point and Fort McHenry.

*Mass fish die-offs in Lake Champlain up in Vermont are being called “the new normal” by government officials.

*Along the coast of northern California, seals and young sea lions are dying “in record numbers“.

*Three months ago, farmers in Singapore lost 160 tons of fish to a mass die-off event.

*Back in September, approximately 40 kilometers of the Fuhe River in China “was covered with dead fish“.

*Also during last September, close to ten tons of dead fish were found floating on a lake near the town of Komotini, Greece.

The following are some more examples of mass fish death events from just the past several weeks that come from a list compiled on another website…

*****

17th May 2014 – Masses of fish turn up dead in a marina in Pultneyville, New York, America. Link

16th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Aragatsotn, Armenia. Link

15th May 2014 – Hundreds of fish dying off ‘due to pollution’ in the wetlands of Rewalsar, India. Link

14th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing ashore in Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, Canada. Link

13th May 2014 – Tens of thousands of dead fish wash up along coast of Tasmania, Australia. Link

12th May 2014 – Mass death of fish in the river Eden ‘is a mystery’ in Cumbria,England. Link

11th May 2014 – Thousands of dead Puffer Fish, also dead turtles washing up on various beaches in Colombia and Costa Rica. Link and here

11th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish found in a pond is ‘a mystery’ in Southborough, England. Link

10th May 2014 – Thousands of fish dead due to pollution in spring in Sikkim,India. Link

9th May 2014 – Die off of Fish ’causes panic’ in the Luda Yana River in Bulgaria.Link

8th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake ‘shock residents’ in Mangalore, India. Link

8th May 2014 – 12 TONS of dead fish removed from lakes in Chisago County, Minnesota, America. Link

7th May 2014 – Massive die off of fish in reservoirs in Quanzhou, China. Link

7th May 2014 – Thousands of fish found dead on the shores of Roatan,Honduras. Link

5th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish wash up on a beach ‘a mystery’ in San Antonio Oeste, Argentina. Link

5th May 2014 – Mass death of fish found in lakes in Almindingen, Denmark. Link

4th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Fujian, China. Link

3rd May 2014 – 1,000+ dead fish wash ashore along a lake in Ontario, Canada.Link

2nd May 2014 – 40,000 fish die suddenly in a dam in Piaui, Brazil. Link

30th April 2014 – Mass fish kill ‘worst I’ve seen in 26 years of working here’ in Iowa, America. Link

30th April 2014 – Large amount of dead fish found floating along a river in Xiasha District, China. Link

29th April 2014 – Dozens of sea turtles are washing up dead in South Mississippi,America. Link

29th April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing up along the shores of Lakes in Wisconsin, America. Link

28th April 2014 – Turtles and other marine life continue to wash up dead in Bari,Italy. Link

28th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in the Mogi River in Brazil. Link

25th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in a reservoir in Nanchong, China. Link

24th April 2014 – Large amount of fish wash up dead along a river in La Chorrera, Panama. Link

23rd April 2014 – 2 Million fish found dead in a dam in Tehran, Iran. Link

23rd April 2014 – Mass die off of fish in Island lake in Ontario, Canada. Link

23rd April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake in Mudanjiang, China.Link

22nd April 2014 – 1,000 fish found dead in Oona River, County Tyrone,Northern Ireland. Link

21st April 2014 – Large amounts of fish washing up dead along the Panchganga River in India. Link

19th April 2014 – MILLIONS of dead fish found floating in Thondamanaru Lagoon, Sri Lanka. Link

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And remember, this list represents events that have happened in just a little over the past month.

So what is causing all of these mass fish death events? There might be multiple causes, such as pollution or oxygen level depletion in frozen lakes. There are plenty of obvious culprits for river systems you only have to look at the following image to realize that it would take a very special fish to be able to live in the Indian Yamuna river.

80% of animals rely on groundwater and rivers for survival. "30 out of the 47 largest rivers around the world record at least medium threat levels at the mouth" Read more. The threats for river systems are huge and have been covered extensively elsewhere. What will be targeted here is what is occurring in the oceans.

The concern is 2 fold. The first is dissolved oxygen in the oceans. That allows fish to breathe. The second is acidification. That restricts the ability of crustaceans to form shells. 

The oceans dissolved oxygen levels are decreasing. Basically as temperatures increase, the ability of water to hold dissolved oxygen decreases.

Here is a chart that shows the dissolved oxygen ocean levels.
http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/images/KV_Oceans_1_528x317.png
The affects of that can be shown from anecdotal evidence;

We know jellyfish populations are increasing. That is consistent with oxygen depletion.

Toxic Algal blooms are increasing, again consistent with oxygen depletion.

Shark sightings and attacks are increasing . That seems consistent with oxygen depletion at depth. It would force fish to shallower depths, and the predators would follow. In addition, larger fish such as sharks suffer first under oxygen depletion so they are forced up.

Lobster populations are decreasing.
Despite booming populations of adult lobsters, marine biologists and fisheries along the northern Atlantic coast of the United States are concerned about a dramatic population decline for young larval lobsters. Scientists searching for the cause of this drop see signs that ocean currents and warmer ocean waters are possible culprits.
Dr. Rick Wahle, research professor for the School of Marine Science at the University of Maine and founder of the American Lobster Settlement Index, has been tracking lobster populations since 1989. The scope of his study today tracks the waters in New England and Atlantic Canada.
Wahle and his crew of divers are tasked with counting the larval populations of American lobster. He told AccuWeather.com that the last few years have seen some downturn, but that recently the decrease was more drastic.
“In 2013 we saw one of the most widespread downturns in the history of [this study] for sure,” Wahle said.

Then I came across this. Apparently large numbers of fish are congregating around methane hydrates (sea floor vents) without an obvious food source. What are they doing there? There is a lack of obvious prey. Could it also be related to the oxygen levels in the ocean? Again, large fish suffer first when dissolved oxygen decreases. If oxygen depletion causes them to suffocate what would attract them to the hydrates?
I started doing some research, and in turns out there is a type II methanotroph called Methylomirabilis oxyfera, that generates its own oxygen – without light. It uses that oxygen to eat methane. As a byproduct it produces H2O. There are a lot of these methanotrophs around the methane hydrates. So, is it possible that there is an abundance of marine life around these methane hydrates because the fish are actually suffocating? Despite the risks of predation, the methane hydrates are a breath of fresh oxygen for the fish.


Many of these issues are consistent with oxygen depletion, and it has been proven to be happening. There are areas of the ocean known as Oxygen Minimum Zones (OMZ). Unfortunately, these are expanding with the consequence "Reduced oxygen levels may have dramatic consequences for ecosystems and coastal economies"

So why aren't these effects being noticed more? The reason is the fish are being forced up from the depths in order to breathe, so there is ample fishing and the statistics look good. "What you end up with is overly optimistic data because the animals are squeezed in density in that part of the world, which is higher than in others. What you need to do is correct for that." Eric Prince, a research fisheries biologist. 

There will come a time, and probably has already been reached, where humanity will massacre what remains of the fish populations as they are easy pickings. If that doesn't do it, a global warming increase of 2.5C (we are at 0.8C) would cause the OMZ to expand significantly "The oxygen minimum zone in the Atlantic is going to start in North Africa and go all the way down to the tip of South Africa. It’s going to cover every single part of the eastern South American coast." from this interview.

As bad as that is, in addition, the ocean is acidifying as a byproduct of absorbing C02. The acidification rate is occurring at a rate 10 times that of any geological time period in history. Acidification is destroying the organisms at the bottom of the oceanic food chain. 
From this study " “Our study showed that all animal groups we considered are affected negatively by higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Corals, echinoderms and molluscs above all react very sensitively to a decline in the pH value ... the sensitivity of the animals to a declining pH value may increase if the sea temperature rises simultaneously." We have both rising temperatures and declining pH. As a result the food chain will re-arrange itself. 
Benign phytoplankton, the good, as against toxic algae, the bad, are decreasing. Along with the declines are also decreasing Zooplankton populations. Benign phytoplankton and the Zooplankton are the basis of the ocean food chain, CO2 absorbtion, and up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe.



As the food chain re-arranges, the winners will be jellyfish, toxic algae and bacteria  (such as what has happened in the Baltic sea). The losers will be numerous species, among them the whales, and us.

Some people don't realize that the temperature of the Earth is increasing at a faster rate than what we feel. The temperature increases are being stored in the ocean. Water is a much more effective thermal mass than is dirt. If the temperature was in the atmosphere it would have more of a chance of escaping into space. However, as greenhouse gases increase so the ability of heat to escape declines. Heat does not just disappear.
"Heat is a form of energy (thermal energy) derived from the temperature difference between a body and its surrounding system. Accordingly, the principle of the conservation of heat is implied by the conservation of energy contained in the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed from one form to another." here
That heat releases from the Pacific ocean into the atmosphere during an El Nino event, which almost looks certain to occur now (latest June prediction).

To show the current sea temperature situation, the image I am using is the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for 3rd June 2014 from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. When scientists talk about temperature anomalies they are talking about temperature departures from the base. The base is the average temperatures established from 1880 when reliable records began. 


It is important to realize that these are only surface temperatures. But considerable parts of the ocean are displaying 1-2C already. There is considerable temperature stored deeper which is a concern in its own right, but not one that will be covered here (Google "seabed methane melt" or "Sea Glacial melt"). On a separate note is the temperatures in the Indian ocean in the image. That is where the methane hydrates, discussed previously, were located. The water there is unusually warm, which would result in reduced dissolved oxygen.

So currently there is an increasing rate of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing air and water temperatures. How far will the temperatures go? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN centralized body that is monitoring climate change. The IPCC has been forced by governments to become more and more conservative in their predictions. The predictions are based on various atmospheric states called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The highest RCP is 8.5. For anyone wanting the full scientific details of an estimated RCP8.5 scenario (that is warming 4C by 2100) then here is the article. Keep in mind, 4C is at the high end of the  IPCC predictions. Realistically, it is looking very likely that we will blow past that prediction. 4C by 2060 is more realistic. 4C doesn't sound like much, but that would actually be a horrendous outcome and threaten our species ability to live in many regions of the planet for many reasons beyond simply what is discussed here (Google heat stress).

Finally, nuclear pollution of the oceans is inevitable.

There seems no other way to view it, our oceans are dying. The implications of this for our food chain is immense. Somewhere between 400 to 800 million people rely on the ocean as a primary source of protein. There seems no way to fix it. Given the continuing buildup of CO2, it is very unlikely to be stopped, and accelerating atmospheric methane is going to ensure that temperatures continue to rise. The effect on the oceans will remain for thousands of years (about 70 actually). Eventually, people may regret their ocean front properties. The byproducts of algal blooms will be that parts of the sea will turn red as blood and stink, and that stench is actually harmful to humans to breathe. 

I can't avoid a connection to Revelations 16:3-4 in the bible. It seems the Angel of death is us. What a legacy we will leave, our grandchildren will curse the water we once swam in.

The timeline

All predictions for climate change are on the low side. This is why.

So when are things likely to get very bad. All these issues will happen together but some will be more pronounced at different times. As I see it, first will be the effects of peak oil causing inflation, followed by the baby boomers resulting in asset deflation, followed by the climate affecting both. 

The following is from this post, it seems to correlate closely with most commentators;

■ Based on Figure 21 from the Copenhagen Diagnosis (pdf; click for high-res version), I put 1½°C arriving shortly after 2020. Call it 2022 for a clean decade from now.

Note: All science in this field is done in °C

■ We’re at .8°C now [2012] with an equal amount, totaling 1½°C, in the pipeline and guaranteed. When we get to 1½°C, will 3°C (the start of “mass extinction“) also be in the pipeline? If that 1:2 ratio (0.8°C now : 1.5°C coming) holds, I’d say Yes. [Update: As of mid-2014, the total including the pipeline is now 2°C.]

■ If true, we’ll know in a decade if the “mass extinction” scenario is inevitable. Would I love to be wrong? Of course; I plan to be alive in a decade. But should we plan on having more time than a decade to dither and coddle the rich? You pick — choices are Yes and No.

■ Using Figure 21 again, when does 3°C actually arrive? The most aggressive scenario gives us actual 3°C between 2050–2060.

■ If so, that’s all she wrote. In 2055, say, when 3°C shows up, I’ll bet all I own that 6°C is in the pipeline. 2055 will mark the start of a new geological era.

This estimate of 2050 also correlates to this post. Society will experience an extreme collapse prior to that period though due to all the factors (and many more) outlined here and at other climate change blogs. But it is not only climate change, there is also the aging population, peak oil, oceanic death ... the list is long. 

However, I don't agree with the foregone conclusions from that point on. The conclusion is that the warming will continue and accelerate from there onward. However, that does not seem possible. 
For a number of points;

• From Greenland alone you would have 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of cold water being dumped into the sea. That would have at least 2 effects;

1. Initially heating from the albedo affect of the loss of arctic ice would be countered by the cold water.
2. It is likely the cold fresh water would shut down or at least slow down the Thermohaline circulation. That would decrease the warm water flowing to the arctic;
• That would decrease the rate at which the methane hydrates melt. That means;
• The rate of change for the methane emissions would decrease, but not stop.
• If it stopped completely parts of the whole would be thrown back into an ice age, but that is assuming a lot of very complex interactions. It does however have a precedent that the Younger Dryas may have been caused by a shutdown of the The Gulf Stream from a sudden inflow of fresh water.
3. The isostatic rebound from the loss of that huge amount of weight in such a small time-frame would result in volcanoes. Those volcanoes would pump sulfides into the atmosphere which would reflect some of the sun's heat, cooling the atmosphere.
4. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, by itself, would raise the sea level 7m that in turn would be a huge thermal mass to initially absorb increased temperatures. That is not factoring glaciers in Antarctica, Canada, South America and the Tibetan plateau.

• Economic modeling puts an economic collapse at 2015 - 2020. For many reasons, society would collapse,  not all, but a significant portion. For example, China will have its own Thorium reactors with a local source for fuel. Iran also would have the means to power significant underground cities, though they will need supplies. So certainly parts will continue. However, the collapse of civilization as we know it would have profound impacts on CO2 emissions. So;
• There would be no further significant CO2 pollution. That would leave the existing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere for roughly 40 years. During that time;
• The newly growing Northern forests would be a carbon sink
• The oceans would continue to be a carbon sink (albeit at a much slower rate than today)

There is a way to economically mitigate the pending collapse. The issue is it is unlikely to be implemented in time. Again there is a way to reverse the warming over a long period of time, but again I fear it will not be implemented in time. Both those solutions require foresight to implement before the real problems manifest themselves, and both would require a long time to resolve the issues. However, our political structure is based on short periods.

So my conclusion is that a collapse is certain, but what happens from that point on is less sure. There may be actually unforeseen positive feedbacks like methane emissions from under the Greenland ice sheet or Antarctica. As well as a host of others. There are a lot of unknowns.

Certainly there will be a fragmentation of the world's civilization. Countries that have made preparations will barely survive in any form, however countries that haven't prepared will experience catastrophic collapse. In this context I find it hard to imagine that the US will make it in its current form. The disintegration will be uneven. Places affected by migration, heat and drought will become less productive and have larger social issues.
Its refusal to even accept that the climate is changing will mean it will respond to the threats too late. Its huge cache of personal weapons, its massive debt, its changing climate and a flood of people coming from the south to escape drought and heat would destabilize parts of it.

Perhaps the gun issue will be the deciding factor for the US. The Tao Te Ching states "Weapons of war are instruments of disaster. They are rejected by all beings. Thus a person of Tao will not dwell upon them."

The violence that will result from migration will overshadow the attempts of decent people to survive and provide for others, and the government will not have the funds to protect them. Under an evolutionary perspective, the hunter and the prey are balanced by the preys ability to create defenses. The local government debts will affect (and already has) the police. However, it needs to be recognized that this will not be an even gradual descent. In the US between local government debt and unfunded liabilities, some areas are going to be much better off than others. 

Certain centres are already militarizing their police forces.
With a lack of defense, the prey will join gangs or be wiped out in poorer urban centres. What will remain will be hunter (police) against hunter (gangs), in an environment with less and less food.

So given the above as a guide we have a decade to prepare. Seems like it is a lot, but it is not. It would be easier if there was a recognition of the problem among the people who are going to be most affected. But unfortunately, they are lost in the day to day details of their lives. In addition, they are being fed misinformation, or no information at all. The issue is that it is a preparation, for an extremely hostile environment.

Oxygen

Don't take for granted what you can't replace. 

This article is about the atmosphere's oxygen levels. At first this topic might appear done and dusted. It is true that burning fossil fuels depletes oxygen. However, there are significant reserves of oxygen in the atmosphere. So much so that, in the last 20 years we have only decreased it by 0.03%. But first, some technical background:

"It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air." (Dr Ralph Keeling)

".. the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1, 2005 would have been ... 0.095% of the preindustrial amount." (article)
We have lost 0.095% of the atmospheric oxygen through the burning of fossil fuels. It is still happening (current measurements). 

From here "fossil fuel burning is depleting atmospheric oxygen at a rate of almost 1000 tons per second". If we burnt all known sources of fossil fuel we would deplete the atmosphere by 3.3%. Given the current oxygen content at 21% remove 3.3% = 17.7% of oxygen.
That is the equivalent of living at an altitude of 1524m. However, I don't expect we will burn all the fossil fuels.

So what is the problem?

Today we have 20.95% oxygen in the atmosphere, but the geological history has shown periods of 10-15% atmospheric oxygen.
"We found that particularly low oxygen levels coincided with intervals of elevated global temperatures and high carbon dioxide concentrations" (article)

Nature is a fine balance. Look at where the oxygen comes from, at least 70% of the worlds oxygen is generated by phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are one celled plants in the ocean. They use the energy from the sun, and the nutrients from the ocean and produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. These tiny plants are under threat from ocean warming and acidification. 

"... results suggest that changes in the pH at the cell surface of plankton could adversely affect cellular equilibrium, leading to poor growth if not death. "
"The implications of our research are profound," said Professor Flynn. "They suggest scope for a more serious impact of oceanic acidification upon marine plankton than previously thought."
(link)
"The new research means that ocean warming will impact plankton, and in turn drive a vicious cycle of climate change."
(link)

As stated previously phytoplankton are adversely affected by acidification, and also by Surface Sea Temperature (SST). There are many types of phytoplankton. The benign types are the food source of the ocean. But there are other toxic types. Given the right environment the toxic ones will out compete the benign ones. With the result that under warming conditions toxic algal blooms will increase.(link)

Benign phytoplankton, the good, are decreasing. Along with the declines are also decreasing Zooplankton populations. Benign phytoplankton and the Zooplankton are the basis of the ocean food chain, CO2 absorbtion, and up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe. 



The effects are starting to be seen in the food chain.

Let's make a hypothesis on where this could head to, and I admit this is speculation. Ocean acidification decreases the availability of benign phytoplankton. So less oxygen is being produced. However, the ocean is still absorbing oxygen from the atmosphere via diffusion. Ocean acidification increases toxic algal blooms, which are feeding on agricultural pollutants. When the algae die off from over population the bacteria decompose the algae and as they do that, they consume oxygen. They consume more dissolved oxygen than the algae produced. There is nothing to replace the oxygen at the rate that the ocean is consuming it. The land produces roughly 30% of the worlds oxygen. The ocean becomes an oxygen sponge. The more anaerobic it becomes the more purple and green bacteria will dominate.

Unless the land mass is generating at least the same amount of oxygen that the ocean is consuming then our atmosphere will become toxic to human life. Originally it was estimated phytoplankton has decreased 40% from 1950. (link) The original paper published in nature. Apparently new algorithms in satellite imagery meant a better detection of oceanic plankton in the Southern Ocean. So science refined its predictions. The latest is this report which is predicting 6% loss of phytoplankton, with a 2C rise, without factoring in acidification.

Significantly better than the previous estimate, but even a 6% loss would reduce the amount of oxygen coming from the ocean.
Some back of the envelope calculations...
Oxygen is 20.95% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is generated from 30% (land based) + 70% (sea based)
Decreasing the seas ability to generate oxygen by 6% would result in;
20.95/100 = x/95.8
20.07% with a 2C rise, not factoring acidification and land desertification. 

The problem with factoring acidification is that colder water absorbs higher levels of CO₂ (more acidification) than warmer water. Warmer water, also absorbs less oxygen, decreasing dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen minimum zones (aka dead zones). 
Same calculation, 3C rise? For now we will assume a linear effect in the ocean, that would result in a 9% reduction of oxygen generation from the ocean. 
20.95/100 = x/93.7 =>  19.63% oxygen without factoring the effects of acidification and land desertification.

 "if the oxygen level in such an environment falls below 19.5% it is oxygen deficient, putting occupants of the confined space at risk of losing consciousness and death." (OSHA rules on atmospheres in closed environments)

Obviously with the concentration of fossil fuel burning in particular areas oxygen levels are not constant. As mentioned previously between 1990 and 2008 (say 20 years), we have lost 0.0317%. Assume that was to continue at a linear rate, therefore if we hit 3C in 20 years global oxygen will be at roughly 19.6%.
This would imply that certain areas will go oxygen deficient at a 3C rise.
Compare the following images. The first from California, the other from the southern tip of Australia


The difference is pretty obvious. The difference may be from colder waters (more phytoplankton) in the southern ocean, or from increased CO2 burning in the US. Regardless, given the 19.6% estimate if 3C in 20 years is an average, then some areas are going to be more at risk than others.
That is not taking into account desertification of the land. "Due to drought and desertification each year 12 million hectares are lost (23 hectares/minute!)..." (link)
We are getting closer to localized oxygen deficiency.  My estimate would be that city centres would be the most depleted. Cities are hotter than the suburbs usually by 1-2C. A city's heat island effect creates low pressure, this pulls in air from the suburbs. The suburbs contain the most traffic during peak hours. Therefore, air being pulled towards the city centre has been subjected to fossil fuel combustion. As mentioned previously, that air would be oxygen depleted. A city, particularly one land locked, would suffer as a result.

Geological record

A number of times in history have seen ocean acidification events. It seems that when it was gradual the systems adapted. When the change was dramatic, large die-backs of plankton resulted. That coincides with our current situation. The recurring theme seems to be that higher latitudes performed better (link) in regards to plankton survival.

What's the effect of low oxygen levels on our body? 
Low oxygen levels also can have a harmful affect on brain function and physical ability. Attention span and concentration may be reduced. Memory and mood can be affected. Abstract reasoning and problem solving skills can be impaired. Speech may become affected. Simple sensory and motor skills may become difficult. Complex tasks that require gross and fine motor skills become harder. This may include tasks such as driving a car and operating equipment. Poor endurance for exercise, muscle weakness and impaired coordination also can be seen. Severe hypoxemia is lifethreatening. It can ultimately lead to confusion, coma and death. (link)

This is a potentially huge problem, it may not hit for a while, but it really seems to be gathering pace. A lot of linear assumptions have been made in coming to these conclusions, let's hope they stay that way.

A global fix would be difficult without radical geo-engineering to cool the water temperature. Initially, the following low tech ideas might help (pulled from the web I don't remember where). But possibly the better approach might be to grow your own phytoplankton. It can be used as a food source for fish and people (if untainted), and it generates oxygen. The other, more industrial, approach is to use electrolysis to generate hydrogen and oxygen from solar cells. Obviously, not for everyone.

Things You Can Do to Improve Your Air and Oxygen Intake

Use plants to reduce indoor air pollution. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. 
The recommended number of plants is 2 for every 100 square feet of interior space (assuming 8 to 10 feet ceilings) with groupings of plants being helpful. The more leaves the plant has, the better. Covering potting soil with a layer of aquarium gravel will help reduce mold spores. Even four or five plants in a room can make a difference in air quality. Some of the best plants for cleaning air indoors are:

• Chinese Evergreen
• Gerbera Daisy
• Aloe Vera
• English Ivy
• Bamboo
• Palm
• Banana
• Spider Plant
• Mum
• Heart-Leaf Philodendron
• Janet Craig
• Devil's Ivy
• Split-Leaf Philodendron
• Warneckie Snake Plant
• Ficus (Weeping Fig)
• Corn Plant
• Peace
• Lily Madagascar Dragon Tree
• Umbrella Plant
• Arrowhead Plant

Here is another good article on oxygen generating plants.

Retaining knowledge

We have forgotten how to survive outside the machine. Humanity cannot afford to lose that knowledge. We have built a huge wealth of knowledge and it is crucial that it is preserved, currently it is stored in hyperspace. When the wars break out hyperspace will be the first strike. There were 8 million botnet connections in the last 14 days and that is nothing unusual. Just as there are seed banks there needs to be offline knowledge banks. DIY tutorials, university courses in Electronics, Agriculture, Food, Engineering you name it.

The trouble is with long term storage, assuming no internet.

Hard drives will eventually wear out.

Tape is probably good for 40-50 years if stored correctly, but tape drives are getting more difficult to source, particularly for parts.

Punched cards would survive long term storage, but are impractical and unavailable.

That really only leaves printed books, and they are disappearing fast.

If I was going to despair about any one point it would be this one. If we go into thermogeddon and have not adequately provided Thorium nuclear power solutions in time, then we can assume that the communications system will break down due to lack of maintenance. Once that happens, the dominoes will fall and eventually all web-based knowledge will be lost.

It is therefore of fundamental importance that critical systems for a remote community do not overly rely on technology. Sooner or later that technology will fail and replacement parts could be non-existent. I say could be, because it is unlikely that governments will be allowed to stand by while their citizens fry. They will be forced to supply power at whatever cost.

But information is critical and that is where cd3wd archives come in. A collection of ~200GB of survival information. Torrents are here: www.cd3wd.com/download/index.htm

For the next generation

OK, this is not really for my generation. It is for my kids, nieces and nephews. I am not saying any of this on a whim.

We have been lulled into a false sense of security regarding climate change. As if it is something too big, or doubtful, so it is problem for governments to sort out. There have always been fires, floods and heat waves so this is nothing new. Natural cyclic variations.

To put it in perspective, the following graph using an average of global temperatures from 1979-1988 as the "0" value



Essentially since the last major El Nino (1998) event the oceans have been absorbing a lot of the increasing temperatures. Those temperatures have not gone away, water stores temperature very effectively. It's called thermal mass and water has it like virtually no other substance. The following graph is the average temperature of the oceans to a depth of 700m



That shows the air temperature and the water temperature are both increasing.

There is a particular temperature mass that has been tracked and it is hovering in the Pacific. The pool of 4-6+ degree Celsius above average temperatures continues to widen and lengthen, now covering 85 degrees of longitude from 170 East to 105 West. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that the zone of extreme 6+ C temperature anomalies has both widened and extended, covering about 50 degrees of longitude and swelling to a relative depth of about 30-40 meters. 
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/el-nino-update-monster-kelvin-wave-continues-to-emerge-and-intensify/

If it emerges partially it will be called a mild El Nino, if it emerges fully it will be severe. That is not really the concern. The issue here is that the oceans will store more and more of our heat. It does not go away, and it is having a side-effect. Under the oceans in the Arctic, the shores of Siberia, Canada, Greenland and the Antarctic there are frozen sediments that holds vast quantities of methane.

That stored heat is gradually thawing the Arctic/Antarctic sea ice but it is also gradually thawing the sediments. Apart from the occasional El Nino we don't cop it on the surface. We have a sense of luxury, mild increases in air temperature. But once the oceans have reached heat capacity there really is no going back. A thermal mass gives back heat when the surrounding environment is cooler than it. It is unlikely our atmosphere will cool any time soon.

C02 is precursor, it has caused the initial warming, but it has unleashed something far worse. That beast is CH4, methane. Methane has a short atmospheric life (12 years) but it is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas (ghg) than is C02. Once methane is unlocked there really is no turning back. Unfortunately that has started from the Siberian permafrost, the coast of Norway and Svalbard, the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic.
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/methane-buildup-in-atmosphere.html

This is a chart of the historic atmospheric methane levels as determined by the ice cores drilled in Antarctica and current measurements.




It is thought there is 1,500 gigatons of methane locked in deep sea sediments. As the Arctic ice melts, the sea absorbs more energy which warms the water more (albedo). When the sediments under the ocean thaw that methane gradually releases. That is what you call the "slab model". Gradually and evenly the permafrost thaws and releases methane over centuries of time. Normally under the "slab" model this methane is safely stored. It would take centuries or longer for the gas to escape as the covering ice melts. Methane is broken down over time in the atmosphere, quicker than C02, but a long time from the perspective of our lifetime. If its release is orderly everything is ok. 

However, earth quakes and tremors release it suddenly from local sources. The problem is that earth tremors are realignments and these cause cracks in the covering ice and permafrost. It can be shown that arctic methane releases can be tied to arctic earthquakes. Well what would cause more earthquakes? http://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259127792/a-sharp-rise-in-earthquakes-puts-oklahomans-on-edge. Suddenly, when we least need it, it seems every country in the world wants in on the action of fracking in the arctic. Claims that it only produces tremors and the occasional earthquake are irrelevant. Google "Methane water fracking Texas"

As the situation becomes more unstable in the Ukraine, Europe will be forced to look northwards for energy sources. Methane from fracking is already being explored in Norway. What choice do they have? Maybe to import it from the US rather than be self-reliant. That does not seem to be the way they are heading. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amid-showdown-with-energy-rich-russia-calls-rise-in-europe-to-start-fracking/2014/04/07/f3616058-2c24-4683-abe3-728a5572debf_story.html

Alaska, Norway, Canada and a host of others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_by_country are in on the act, but that is not the exhaustive list some are doing it quietly. When it is done outside the Arctic/Antarctic they are ultimately polluting locally, done at the poles and we are all going to pay the price.

The other issue is the rapid heating and cooling of the Greenland ice sheet. It is causing the glaciers to crack which allows melted surface water to run down. This water then freezes and expands extending the cracks. At the bottom of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are huge reservoirs of methane.

The estimated time frames vary from 2036 to 2100. But keep in mind that by 2050 there will be 9 billion people on the face of the planet everyone of them with a right to live, work and raise a family. Just a 2C rise will spell out massive disruption to food chains and water availability. Currently a 4C rise is looking more realistic. At 4C you are talking about very dire conditions. 

Governments have taken on so much debt while trying to achieve "growth" that they cannot provide protection against this. There is just no way for this to end well. Currently the US unfunded liabilities stand at ~124 trillion dollars.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/22999-evidence-of-acceleration-on-all-fronts-of-anthropogenic-climate-disruption
IMF’s Christine Lagarde was sounding the warning bell and saying that “huge government and banks risk new financial crash. That the world leaders needed to do more to deal with huge government and bank debts that will continue to drag down growth and undermine the stability of the financial system.”

There is no point any more in denying it. Nearly all scientists (97%) agree in climate change. And, we are to blame for climate change http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2014/04/odds-that-global-warming-is-due-to-natural-factors-slim-to-none/. On the other side you have big business. A lot of people, who don't understand the facts, will take whatever glimmer of contradictory information they can find to make a case against it. Here is an example. By reading the article you think "An MIT scientist who thinks it is bunk, therefore climate change is bunk". Now check the facts, he is retired and thinks that smoking has no link to cancer.

The reality is that once we have a real problem on our hands it will be too late to fix it. The ghg pollutants cannot be removed from the air and they have a long lifespan. The oceans cannot be cooled to preserve the sediments. This all comes down to money, and if the statement "Money is the root of all evil" was ever true, then this proves it.

The public view is misinformed. 25% of Americans don't believe the climate is changing. There is little real hope for massive energy usage changes in the developed world. Even if implemented, effective climate control would cause initial large scale unemployment that would persist for a significant time. The masses would see unemployment and a decrease in their living standards. They would therefore vote for whoever would improve their lot. Which takes us back to business as usual. If the masses do not accept climate change then the developed world will continue on its present path. 

And if changes are not implemented in the developed world, then it is reasonable for Asia not to reduce its consumption either. When you have 230 million people living in comparative luxury, and refusing to change, then just wait and see what will happen when that number is 2.3 billion (China+India alone). 

Our present structure favours big business and they want things to continue as they are. An example would be Exxon "Exxon, for example, spent more than $130m in lobbying and political contributions between 2002 and 2010. The purpose of these contributions was clear: the oil giant donated ten times as much money to politicians who opposed emissions reductions than they did to those who supported such policies." (http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/unwilling-leader-exxon-mobil-climate-report) 

So the result is that even if people want to be informed it will become increasingly difficult to do so. That is because governments are beginning to silence scientists
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/silencing-scientists.html
Big business now control the government and the news. As such, and as depressing a conclusion as it is, there really isn't anything that can be done until the effects are so bad that change is forced. 

Completely collapsing society as we know won't fix the problem either, it would just slow climate change. The positive climate feedbacks that are now in motion cannot be stopped to reduce the temperature in the Arctic (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/nasa-giss-shows-march-2014-was-third-hottest-on-record-as-arctic-heatwave-spurs-siberian-fire-season-to-early-start/).

Consequently, the discussion is not about how to stop it although I applaud those who are trying. The discussion is about living in it.

At this point you would expect me to propose building a bomb shelter getting lots of guns and ammo and learn to live off the bush. That won't work, this problem has a time span of thousands of years. That would be a struggle for survival, not living. Next option, build a village commune and live off the land. Perhaps, but it will not be easy. There is no buffering against the elements. Any major storm or heat event would decimate the community.

There is a future with society. The affluent will live in gated communities with air conditioning. Malls will be extended with apartments. Adjoining apartment blocks will be linked to become malls. Energy will come from the current mixes, but eventually will probably go to Thorium nuclear energy.

The major problems will be energy, food, security and employment. This is a topic too large to be covered here. So how to function in this new paradigm? Become indispensable, you really cannot afford to do otherwise. 

The Arctic fox when it crosses a frozen river walks with its ears pointed down towards the ice. It is listening for cracking in the ice. It does that because its life depends on it.

Law and Order

Even with the right technologies, very few communities survive long term without religion and cultural practices that give the community a sense of identity and moral structure. I am going to make sweeping generalizations here but modern religion is found at the mall. Buddhist practice in the west has become so watered down that it is nothing more than feeling peaceful (not saying that’s a bad thing). Christianity is now about mega churches and is a far cry from what the 1st century gnostics had in mind. True Taoism is lost in antiquity. Islam, during the dark ages, was the refuge of science, we would not have the number 0 or algebra without it. But it became rigid to the point where they burned down the library of Alexandria. The Hindus seem to have become stuck in a plethora of gods and ritual.

So the garden of Eden has been lost, finding it again is near impossible. There are some who know the way back, but most people really aren’t interested in looking. There is no fear of God/Allah/Buddha/White buffalo women/(insert name here). That is the greatest threat to any isolated community, without government mandated law and order. Reminds me of the book “Lord of the flies”.

What community would survive 1000s of years? The Israelis seem to have done it with a simple fixed set of guidelines. It essentially segregated them, in a volatile fluid part of the world. I think the idea with circumcision was brilliant, "Hey you're not one of us, get that thing away from me". Just saying ... not recommending :)

So there has to be a constitution, the threat of exile would be enough.

Power

Plan for it now.

Grid systems are not immune and it only takes one blackout for a lot of damage to happen when it is too hot to survive. 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/americas-power-grid-at-the-limit-the-road-to-electrical-blackouts/

A 7 kw air conditioner is going to be useless if you can't power it. In fact, it is actually counter productive if that is your only system. If you do have the luxury then install a small window unit say 2 kw in one room. That would allow a solar system to power it.

In fact once it gets bad enough, I think people should seriously consider bunker beds. Enclosed beds with a small space cooler.