Specialist #7: I Have a Big Mole on My Bottom (Stratospheric Ozone Depletion)

Bluey here,

They say that you should save the best news for last.

Today's specialist appointment was with Dr Solomon and Nurse Fahey-Hegglin. It was breath of fresh air. Who would be a climate or biodiversity specialist when you could be an ozone specialist!?

According to my GP, Dr Steffen, my skin's stratospheric ozone layer (SOL) plays a vital role in protecting my terrestrial and marine organisms from the Sun's most harmful ultraviolet radiation, especially UV-B. Therefore, when human scientists discovered over 30 years ago that ozone was depleting globally and a 'hole' was forming over my Antartica in the Austral Spring, there was widespread consternation. But meanwhile, some industrious humans—such as Mario J. Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland—were busy trying to uncover what was actually causing the depletion. Soon enough, they discovered that the proliferation of a small number of human manufactured chemicals—now called ozone-depleting substances (ODSs)—were the culprits.

My Ozone Depleting Substances (Source: Ozone Assessment 2010)

Today's appointment centred on assessing my current ozone levels globally with particular emphasis on the extent of my Antarctic 'Ozone Hole'.

Dr Solomon used a variety of instruments as well as local and remote techniques to gauge my current ozone condition. Using a contemporary Dobson spectrophotometer and special balloons, she was able to collect local data at my South Pole station and picked up remote trends using a Solar Backscatter Ultra-Violet satellite. Very impressive. While Dr Solomon collected her final pieces of data, Nurse Fahey-Hegglin explained concepts relating to how (and why) ozone is distributed unevenly across my surface, its 90% predominance in my stratosphere compared with my troposphere and more information about ODSs generally. The Nurse referred to my ODSs as 'manufactured halogen source gasses' such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons (e.g. Halon-1211) in order to differentiate them from 'natural halogen source gasses' such as methyl chloride (CH3Cl).

Annual distribution of total ozone (Source: Ozone Assessment 2010)

Dr Solomon and Nurse Fahey-Hegglin's full results:

Medical Report #7: Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

Dr Solomon convinced me through pure data that my overall ozone levels had stabilised and my ozone hole was slowly 'closing', despite variability to do with seasonal fluctuations in temperature, transport dynamics and "volcanic aerosol chemistry". By using a comprehensive range of data sets and comparing 'September' trends from 1980 - 2000 with 2000 - 2014, Dr Solomon showed a clear decreasing trend in my 'Ozone Hole' extent:

Ozone Hole Trends (Source: Science)

What struck me especially about my ozone levels was its ability to fluctuate year on year depending on different variables. For example, the large 'holes' in 2011 and 2015 have been attributed to my Chilean eruptions of Puyehue-Cordón Caulle and Calbuco respectively. The size of the 2015 hole was estimated to have been a whopping 4.4 million km2 larger because of the eruption of Calbuco!

Another fascinating fact I discovered was the relative success of the human-created Montreal Protocol that prescribes limits on ODSs. Due to Kyoto Protocol's abject failure, I thought that 'top-down' human agreements were always under-achievers. It was timely to learn that humans could actually come together and solve a big problem. At current trends, the Montreal Protocol will likely have reduced ODSs to pre-1980 levels by as early as 2050.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Human Population: The Mother of Them All?

Bluey here,

I've been thinking about something that seems plain enough to me but hasn't been talked about much down on my surface by humans; at least not to my knowledge... I haven't discussed it with my GP yet, but I think it's important to bring up.

Why is it that human population is not a Planetary Boundary? Moreover, why is it not the Planetary Boundary?!

I went searching for the stirrings of an answer. This recent article acknowledged that human population was the 'elephant in the room'—and even mentioned GP Steffen—but failed to discuss its planetary boundary credentials. Though it did point to a 2012 UNEP report, called One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity. I found it similarly inconclusive, however an 8 billion figure emerged as an approximate 'carrying capacity'.

'Carrying Capacity': 65 estimates (Source: UNEP)

I must admit, when I read that one study put my 'carrying capacity' at 1,024 billion, I did have some immediate concerns around its veracity. However, the report was able to maintain its integrity, admitting that agreeing upon "a static ceiling for sustainable human population seems destined to uncertainty", and blaming some of the more 'exponential' studies on methodology and assumption differences.

Historical World Population (Source: UNEP)

Eventually, I found what I was looking for. A paper by Population Matters. Human population was overtly mentioned in the same sentence as planetary boundaries:

"Although population is not one of the nine planetary boundaries, the rising level of human population undermines our efforts to limit human development to the above-mentioned nine planetary boundaries."

I think undermines should be replaced with sabotages personally. According to last year's report by the UN, population is growing at 1.18% per year, expected to tip 10 billion just after 2050 and 11 billion 40 years later. My Africa region is expected to witness the bulk of growth, while my Europe and even my China regions are expected to decline. India will soon surpass China as my most populous region!

Lastly, let's touch on the other 'elephant in the room' that's emerged: human consumption. Mathis Wackernagel and colleagues think humans began exceeding my regenerating capacity in 1980 and now use 1.5 of me! While their concept of a human 'ecological footprint' has been contested, it's another very interesting perspective which I plan to look into in the future.

One thing's for sure, I will be pressing GP Steffen about why human population—and it's partner in crime, human consumption—has not been made a PB at our next appointment.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Specialist #6: I’ve Had a Few Minor ‘Plumbing’ Issues of Late (Freshwater Use)

Bluey here,

This morning was about assessing whether my plumbing was in good working order now and into the future. Yes, for you humans, but also the infinite freshwater species and ecosystems that call my body home.

Once again, I had the privilege of having two specialists: Dr Pekel et al and Dr Mekostra (short for Mekonnen-Hoekstra). Nurse Vörösmarty also attended but was collecting biodiversity data for the fist half of the session, so joined us a little late.

At my initial GP appointment, Dr Steffen corrected my former GP's much-criticised focus on my aggregate totals of freshwater. While one might think that aggregate totals provide a telling metric alone, river-basin metrics are a better way of integrating 'my problems' with regional human 'problems' by measuring "maximum rates of blue-water withdrawal by humans along rivers" in order to "avoid regime shifts in the functioning of flow-dependent ecosystems".

Dr Pekel put me through the MRI scanner and as I appeared out the other side he looked surprised at the results. According to Dr Pekel, my total surface freshwater was greater than he'd expected, covering almost 3% of my entire body mass. But what he was most surprised about was not the extent but the change—between 1984 and 2015, there had been "striking patterns of surface water occurrence change".

Dr Mekostra complemented Dr Pekel perfectly, as his area of expertise was the seasonal fluctuations of human water consumption, and its availability, rather than the holistic perspective offered by his colleague. While more human-centric than Dr Pekel, I was well-attuned to perspectives proffered by doctors like Dr Mekostra. His main finding was that 'blue' water scarcity was a fact of yearly life for about 71% of my human population. By comparing his results with previous medical records, water scarcity has increased overall—a stark reality given Dr Pekel's finding that aggregate surface freshwater has increased! Thanks to Dr Mekostra's insistence to conduct variability testing throughout a year, as opposed to annually, a theme has emerged that can't be ignored by humans.

My results in full:

Medical Report 6: Freshwater Use

Additional information:

• Global PB: Maximum amount of consumptive blue water use.
• Basin PB: Blue water withdrawal as percent of mean monthly river flow. Low-flow months (Low-F), Intermediate-flow months (Int-F), High-flow months (High-F)

____

Overall, it seems my endorheic lakes have increased considerably, while my North America—which accounts for 52% of my permanent surface water—and Asian regions have had permanent water gains. Worryingly however, over 70% of my net permanent water loss has been in five concentrated regions: my Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Dr Pekel used the example of the Aral Sea as the gravest reminder about what can happen when unregulated withdrawal of blue water and transboundary policy issues clash; in this case, from the flow of the Syr and Amu rivers:

The Aral Sea is just one of a number of prominent examples alongside Lake Urmia and Lake Chad, where freshwater environments can quickly lose volume, become hyper-saline and decimate local freshwater biodiversity.

Dr Mekostra's reinforced Dr Pekel's appeal suggesting humans should place caps on blue-water consumption per river basin and revisit transboundary cooperation policies. Also, by focussing on my most susceptible regions such as my India, Pakistan, Libya and Somalia, Dr Mekostra demonstrated the importance of pursuing sustainable solutions in my highly populated and traditionally volatile body parts. Dr Mekostra's results also drove home—for humans—the importance of sustainable freshwater use to ensure their maintenance of global security on my surface.

When Nurse Vörösmarty finally arrived with his results, he brought a real sense of enthusiasm to the room. Synthesising two different perspectives—river biodiversity and water scarcity—the nurse provided 'threat maps', including the one below, to schematically represent my body parts most at risk. According to the nurse's figures, Africa and central Asia are experiencing dual threats. My Ethiopia, for example, "contains 150 times less reservoir storage per capita than my North America":

Human Water Security / Biodiversity Threat (Source: Nature)

In terms of biodiversity, the nurse describes freshwater biodiversity as in a "state of crisis", citing four general drivers: catchment disturbance, pollution, resource development and biotic factors. When read next to the Living Planetary Index statistic that 81% of "Freshwater species populations have suffered an 81% decline", the nurses data becomes all the more sobering.

As a final point, Nurse Vörösmarty stressed that humans must conduct integrated water resource management and embrace technological innovation/investment to "reconfigure exposure to threats". Wrong audience I thought, but I noted it down.

Personally, I'm not as worried about water scarcity as I am about biodiversity. As I left the appointment I couldn't help but agree with a quote I'd recently come across: "Freshwater ecosystems may well be the most endangered ecosystems in the world". Yes, my PB was technically 'safe' but I think this is a severe misrepresentation of the facts at hand.

Thanks for the insights Dr Pekel et al, Dr Mekostra and Nurse Vörösmarty. 

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Doughnut Economics

Bluey here,

The strangest thing happened this morning. I was about to send Saturn an email, when all of a sudden, I fell down an internet rabbit hole and came across this TEDx. Listen for when human, Kate Raworth, mentions my GP, Dr Steffen, and my former GP, Dr Rockstrom, at 8.50 minutes!

It seems my 'Planetary Boundaries' are becoming increasingly integrated with other, more obscure human disciplines like human economics. Promising—I think. Despite not being medical or scientific in definition, Raworth's 'life support system' provides a novel way of thinking about my various illnesses and an interesting model for humans—and their so-called 'finance ministers'—to integrate Earth Science into their decision making apparatus. It's just a pity Doughnut Economics—which I learnt is going from a ‘doughnut’ to a book soon—hasn't had all that much attention: only 14,394 views on YouTube.

'The Doughnut' (Source: Doughnut Economics)

Raworth situates the ideal human economy between two circles. The outside of the doughnut, she labels the ‘environmental ceiling’; the inside, the ‘social foundation’. The doughnut, itself, represents ‘the safe and just space for humanity’. I can't help but think that 'the safe and just space for humanity' looks about as thin as my atmosphere and as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow. Nevertheless, I'll watch Raworth's Doughnut with interest and be sure to raise the chemical pollution and atmospheric aeresol loading aspects (upside down and at the bottom in the diagram above) with my GP, Dr Steffen. Why? Because I'm positive he never raised these as issues at our original consultation.

Yours for awhile,

Bluey

Specialist #5: My Growth Stimulants P & N Are Causing Me Problems (Biogeochemical Flows)

Bluey here,

I haven't spoken about specialists besides Dr Barnosky for weeks! So when I found out that Dr Barnosky was figuratively history—having had him for my last two appointments—I was happy. When I discovered I didn't just have one, but two new specialists, I was ecstatic. Dr Brush & Dr Carpenter Bennett came highly regarded, as did their eccentric nurse, Nurse Withers et al.

My predilection for the 'growth hormones' Phosphorous & Nitrogen have become particular issues of late, having caused multiple unforeseen complications. Whilst I continue to overuse them excessively, the doctors were not judgmental—they even seemed to understand the addiction!

Hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay (Source: Integration & Application Network)

The tests for Phosphorus proceeded first. Dr Carpenter sought to develop a more comprehensive exploration of my Phosphorous levels than those of my former GP Dr Rockstrom et al—but inline with my current GP Steffen et al—citing the need to examine both my global and local flows of Phosphorous. Dr Rockstrom had previously concentrated only on Phosphorous flows to my ocean which had fallen well below his proposed PB. I thought Dr Rockstrom's failure to acknowledge the local effects of my Phosphorous intake, particularly my 'eutrophication' at the freshwater level, was plain irresponsible. But it was reassuring to know that I now had expert specialists committed to thorough and broad examination.

On completion, Dr Carpenter handed his instruments to Dr Brush to carry out my Nitrogen tests. Before concentrating on a single body part called 'Chesapeake Bay' near my ribs, Dr Brush explained how an overdose of Nitrogen in coastal areas can cause a "proliferation of planktonic algal growth", just as with Phosphorous. Using the Chesapeake Bay system as her prime example, many coastal areas had "flipped from a benthic dominated system to a phytoplankton based pelagic system". As a result, the mass of decomposing planktonic algae were consuming a significant proportion of my O2, thus depleting what would otherwise be available other low-lying marine organisms to enable them to flourish. My full results:

Medical Report 5: Biogeochemical flows

Tg P = Teragrams or million tonnes of phosphorus.

Humans had their fingerprints all over this again; I knew it. I'd recently read Vaclav Smil's 'Detonator of the Population Explosion' about the Haber process and also his piece about "human interference in the nitrogen cycle being incomparably more massive than the perturbance of the carbon cycle" but having the results in front of me confirmed it all. Before considering the stark implications though, let's break down the drivers of eutrophication and hypoxia—words that were foreign to me until today.

This interactive map of my eutrophication and hypoxia zones, displayed to me by Nurse Withers, brings their full extent to life. According to the World Resource Institute, eutrophication is driven by indirect and direct drivers of which intensive fertiliser application and land use change are its primary culprits, along with the usual suspects of human population growth and economic growth. Climate change and over-fishing, unsurprisingly, also "exacerbate" eutrophication.

Interestingly, eutrophication and hypoxia are not the same—as I'd first thought. Eutrophication actually causes hypoxia or 'Dead Zones' to form. Human scientists explain Hypoxia here:

Should I be as worried as my Medical Report indicates? Dr Brush and Dr Carpenter believe recovery is possible, though didn't convince me fully of their arguments. According to Dr Carpenter, the recycling of Phosphorous and potential zoning techniques could solve dual problems: that of running out of Phosphorous and also reducing runoff into freshwater systems. Equally sanguine, Dr Brush cites denitrification of the watershed as something that "seems possible" if a system were designed to "mimic" past conditions, especially if remote sensing were optimised to identify good locations. All this—of course—assumes a change from the human status quo though.

Enter Nurse Withers and 'green chemistry'. The nurse was a revelation: design new food systems, refine livestock feeds, use biorefinery, promote circular economies, sustainably mine Phosphorous Rock (PR), reduce waste, and recycle! In his opinion, Phosphorous was too critical an element to leave to its own devices. It has no substitute so humans must "maximise the economic value of PR", recover it from secondary resources and "provide P governance" in the food chain. When? As a matter of urgency.

The specialists were stunned.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

PS: I overheard the specialists discussing human PR mining effects on my Nauru. What a tragedy.

A Rational Pessimist, Realist or Optimist?

Bluey here,

Just calling in briefly to bring everyone's attention to this article about how humanity won't survive another 1,000 years. Apparently the warning comes from one of the 'smartest' humans on my surface:

Food for thought, but goes directly against a good book I've been reading lately: The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.

I guess I'll get to see which 'theory' prevails...

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Visiting Venus

Bluey here,

Venus invited me over for movie night yesterday.

I was excited to see Venus, especially to talk with her about her own greenhouse effect and provide her with an update on my health. I was pleased then when she suggested we watch 'The World Set Free' episode of the human series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey together.

'The World Set Free'—presumably named after human H.G. Wells' novel—outlines in concise and scientific terms, some of the differences between mine and Venus's atmosphere.

Watching the full episode really brought Venus's predicament home to me. Without an ocean to absorb the CO2 emitted from Venus's volcanoes and store it in mineral form, Venus's atmospheric pressure is approximately 92 times mine, with an atmospheric density of CO2 around 96.5% and a surface temperature "hot enough to melt lead". Whilst Venus can't remember all the way back billions of years, some humans think Venus may once have had oceans, mainly by reference to the granitic terrain seemingly evident in her highlands and her apparent consistency with the principle of isostasy. Remarkably, humans managed to collect this data in spite of the pervasive clouds of sulphuric acid that engulf her.

With her oceans certainly gone today, one can only speculate whether Venus ever succumbed to a 'runaway' greenhouse effect. Venus assured me not to worry, but all this of course got me thinking.

What would it take to cause me to enter a runaway greenhouse effect? With all these 'positive feedback loops' I've learnt about recently, I'd be wise to be careful, only I'm not really in control these days, as I'm finding out via these specialists...

Remembering back to my meeting with Dr IPCC, just moving from an average of around 280ppm to 400ppm of CO2 over 200 years has made me considerably warmer. At the very least, movie night with Venus made me even more cognisant of how delicate our planet's atmospheres are, particularly when it comes to their CO2 counts.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Specialist #4: I Dyed My Hair; People Started Asking Questions (Land-system Change)

Bluey here,

I visited specialist Dr Barnosky et al again yesterday but thankfully, this time a different assistant was present, Nurse Ellis et al. My spray tan and dyed blonde hair (Land-system change) were the primary discussion points, separate but seemingly related to my previous visit, regarding my low-white-blood-count (Biodiversity loss). I was curious to visit Dr Barnosky again, especially in wake of Dr Brook's revelation that terrestrial biosphere 'tipping points' were not as likely as Dr Barnosky had originally made out.

Nurse Ellis dusted off my records, and explained how the last three centuries had witnessed dramatic change (equivalent to the land change from my last glacial to interglacial transition when 30% of my terrestrial surface changed composition). This is further confirmed in my results below.

Barnosky's 'Quantifying Land Use' (Source: Nature)

Nurse Ellis went on to explain the concept of 'anthromes' to me. It came as no surprise—'anthro' was now well and truly part of my vocab. I gleaned three further themes from my conversation with Nurse Ellis:

1. I've rapidly transitioned from a wild, 'seminatural' state to a 'used state', due to transformation of previously wild terrain (~50%) & from land-use intensification in seminatural anthromes (~50%).
2. Humans have proliferated everywhere; only certain parts e.g. northern Eurasia, eastern U.S.A and small pockets of sub-Saharan Africa have shown resilience to humans.
3. Approximately 85% of my 'wilderness' is now situated in cold/dry biomes, thus human attention should predicate on managing and restoring biodiversity within "complex multifunctional anthropogenic landscape mosaics that will be the predominant form of terrestrial ecosystems today and into the future."

No major surprises there. Now for Dr Barnosky's results:

Medical Report Card 4 - Land-system change

While I agree mostly with Dr Barnosky, especially with his worries around human population and their 'commandeering' of much of my global NPP, I believe he overstates the 'radical shift' problem slightly, as confirmed by Dr Brook. Although he acknowledges "considerable uncertainty remains about whether it is inevitable", I side more with Dr Brooks 'regional emphasis' on this point, in large due to a lack of teleconnection between my continents and as he says, the "spatial heterogeneity in drivers and responses".

I also think Dr Barnosky doesn't concentrate enough on my most important biomes. I'm coming to really appreciate GP Steffen's control variable of forest cover, rather than that used by my previous GP, Dr Rockstrom, of cropland. The Land-use change I'm now most worried about—from my planetary perspective—is the deforesting of vast swathes of my forest biomes, particularly its tropical elements. This has far-ranging implications for my climate, which I'm now thinking could be my biggest planetary problem.

'Land-use Matters' (Source: Nature)

Despite my concerns with Dr Barnosky regarding the veracity of his speculations, he has reinforced for me that, while humans are present, my body must adjust to having up to 70% of my terrestrial biosphere used directly by them. That fact itself could nigh on be a 'tipping point' for me due to how unpredictable their management of these 'novel anthromes' will undoubtedly be.

Yours for awhile,

Bluey

Trumpocalypse: What's next?

Bluey here,

Seems like humans are having a tough old week of it down there. Made me wonder what 'intelligent' life forms might be coming next...

I dug around and came across an informative article on the human website, The New Yorker.

After author, Elizabeth Kolbert, reminded me of my long-extinct Silurian graptolites and the possible stratigraphically significant remnants of Human civilization—structures such as the London Underground—she introduced me to palaeontologist Jan Zalasiewicz's 'giant rats'.

It turns out that Zalasiewicz gives rats pretty impressive odds to succeed Humans, should humans ever decide to destroy themselves:

“Some number will probably stay rat-size and rat-shaped... But others may well shrink or expand. Particularly if there’s been epidemic extinction and ecospace opens up, rats may be best placed to take advantage of that. And we know that change in size can take place fairly quickly.”

'Giant rats' (Source: Looney Tunes)

Specialist #3: My White Blood Cell Count is a Bit Low (Biodiversity Loss)

Bluey here,

I'd completely forgotten that over 99.9% of my white-blood-cell species have already gone extinct. Specialist Dr Barnosky et al referenced my records, citing five periods of low white-blood-cell-counts (or 'mass-extinctions') on my surface. That's when over 75% of my estimated species were lost forever. My:

1. Ordovician: ~443 Mya
2. Late Devonian: ~359 Mya
3. Permian: ~251 Mya (when my white blood cell count was lowest)
4. Triassic: ~200 Mya
5. Cretaceous: ~65 Mya (when my Tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus white blood cells disappeared).

I vaguely remembered the ‘Cretaceous golf ball incident' as I couldn’t believe something so small had managed to have such wide-ranging consequences, but the other four were hazy.

Whilst Dr Barnosky processed my results, I struck up a conversation with his assistant Nurse Hooper et al regarding the effects of plant species loss on 'ecosystem services'. Despite coming from a distinctly human perspective, he brought the relevance of species loss on other vital processes like primary production to the fore.

I also learnt from Nurse Hooper that species loss would have to be in excess of 75% before rivalling other environmental changes like nutrient pollution and drought. I was optimistic. But not for long.

My Results:

Medical Report Card 3 - Biodiversity Loss

For your information:

• E/MSY: Extinctions per million species-years
• BII: Biodiversity Intactness Index (more details with Dr Scholes)

___

Looks like I'll be relying on humans again... Protecting those species—not just my  'charismatic invertebrates'—currently threatened (see below) is of the utmost priority, otherwise I may see my SIXTH great extinction event in my equivalent of just a few days!

IUCN RedList (Source: IUCN)

Dr Barnosky and his assistant's meta-analyses were unequivocal, but I couldn't help but notice all the 'limitations' on the medical report. Consequently, I thought it prudent to collate a selection of 'second' opinions. I organised a conference call with Dr Thomas, Dr Vellend, Dr Brook and Dr Seddon.

Light on data, heavy on opinion, Dr Thomas explained how humans could be boosting my biodiversity by encouraging the hybridisation of species and 'indirectly' increasing temperatures, stressing that 'new'—as opposed to traditional—species shouldn't be stigmatised. In my humble opinion, Dr Thomas raised important points, especially that empirical data must lead the way, not irrationality, however I believe he failed his own test here.

On the other hand, Dr Vellend came equipped with a data-rich rebuttal of Nurse Hooper—around the importance of biodiversity as an 'ecosystem service'. From Dr Vellend's perspective, previous studies had rested on "untested assumptions". There was in fact, no significant empirical change in net local-scale plant biodiversity over time. But because of his local focus, I chose to ignore him. That was until I heard Dr Brook's opinion.

Dr Brook presented me with the best news of the day. Despite the potential loss of global species biodiversity, my functioning and resilience would likely remain strong. He described the functioning of my biosphere 'health' as the "aggregate contribution of the many component ecosystems operating on local and regional scales". So local does matter! I even learnt at a regional scale, there's sometimes a net increase in species diversity, such as on oceanic islands, in spite of species richness becoming more "globally homogenised" generally. Promising.

Dr Seddon offered neutral but informative thoughts around human conservation efforts. The translocation of species, assisted colonisation, ecological replacements and 'rewilding' all come with the best of human intentions, but with mixed results in practice. I think insisting that restoring species in a changing world requires "resetting public aspirations of biodiversity" was on point but should certainly not be used as another convenient excuse by humans.

Big Killers (Source: Nature)

There's cause for worry and cause for hope. Humans must recognise the importance of biodiversity for their own sake. From where I'm standing, my white-blood-cell-count may be decreasing but I'm likely going to be just fine. 

E-mail from Mars — URGENT

Hi,

Mars sent me an email yesterday about a WaitButWhy article, written by a human. Mars marked it URGENT—he's seemingly worried (or ecstatic) that my ailments will be passed to him via humans.

I completed some preliminary research. Below is my reply:

___

Dear Mars,

Insightful article. This Musk character sure wants to shake things up. Personally, I think they'd be wise to back up the 'human hard drive' but I wouldn't worry too much mate, at least not yet.

From the information gathered, a small infection of humans is likely in the near future due to high human levels of curiosity and exponential advances in technology. But, I'm sceptical about outright infection:

1. They have enough problems of their own trying to build a sustainable species on me.
2. It's breaking unchartered territory. I'd be surprised if they tried the full infection ('Terraforming') on you before they tried it on me (although they kind of are now).
3. Human ambition and funding has waned; "humanity's exploration envelope" has shrunk since the Moon experienced a small infection. However, SpaceX's revolutionary spaceship and reusable rocket technology (below) does threaten this.
4. Human ethical concerns but a human recently investigated the ethical dimensions, saying it was "potentially moral if based on the motivation of preserving 'Life', which is of the highest intrinsic value because of its unparalleled rarity in the known universe." Interesting logic.
5. You'd be more hospitable to plant, rather than human life due to your reservoirs of CO2 and H2O, according to other human literature. Humans demand O2 rich atmospheres.

Also, not proud to say it mate, but you have several unappealing characteristics (from the perspective of humans of course): your atmosphere is "hopelessly tenuous" at 0.8% the thickness of mine; you only receive 43% of the sunlight I do (being further away); and your average temperature is -60°C. Even if they sorted all the above out, to get plants growing and producing O2, they'd need to:

1. Increase your heat absorption efficiency using potent GHGs called CFCs (though these are damaged by ultraviolet radiation making this difficult)
2. Encourage the process of CO2 release from your soil (after about -20°C) in order to propel you over 0°C, allowing water vapour (another GHG) to self-generate.
3. 'Unmars' (unearth) plenty of N2 (which they do know about).

How long would this take? It depends on where the CO2-saturated soil is in your regolith. A century at best but probably closer to thousands of years if deeply distributed.

Basically it all comes down to how rich your elemental components are, how accessibly these can be freed up, and what technology they can harness to accelerate it. This is if they can even get to you!

Don't worry. Yet.
Bluey

___

Specialist #2: My Teeth Are Sore (Ocean Acidification)

Bluey here,

I'm pleased that’s over, dentist days aren’t my favourite.

My teeth (sometimes called marine calcifiers or coral reefs) have been suspiciously sore for days. Having indicated the pain could be due to ‘Ocean Acidification’ (OA), Dr Steffen referred me to Dentist Albright, who is the supposed expert. I'm particularly worried about the long-term future of my 'Great Barrier Teeth' (GBT).

First scan of my two front teeth: 'The Great Barrier Teeth' (Source: NASA)

Dentist Albright inserted her dental explorer and dental mirror into my mouth the moment I lay down. As she poked and prodded, she talked to me; I listened. Yes, it was 'highly likely' that my teeth were suffering from OA, but she’d have to conduct some advanced 'seawater chemistry' tests, just to be sure. It was generally accepted within the medical and dental community, that OA was the ‘evil twin of climate change’ and having already been diagnosed with anthropogenic climate change, a diagnosis of OA was likely.

On the completion of the examination, in order to provide me with some OA background and give her some time to process my results, Dentist Albright introduced me to her assistant, Nurse Hönisch.

The nurse pulled out my dental records. Unfortunately, they only went back 300 million years, due to a problem with proxy information (due to a lack of 'pelagic calcifiers'). Before we looked at my records though, she helpfully explained two important ocean-chemistry facts:

1) Acidity

• Atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by my bodily fluid (oceans), including by my saliva (surface-ocean water), which causes chemical reactions that reduce my pH levels 
• Increasing acidity occurs when pH decreases.

2) Saturation State of Calcium Carbonate 

• Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) minerals, such as aragonite, are the building blocks for my teeth
• Increasing saliva acidity causes saturation rates in minerals like aragonite (Ωarag) to decrease, making it harder for my teeth to stay strong, therefore resilient to dissolution. 

The nurse also dropped another fact; that before humans came along, CO2 absorption was buffered on long-time scales by interplay between seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land. Not really relevant anymore, if you ask me. Unless contemporary dentist, Taylor et al's enhanced weathering concept's cost can reduce several magnitudes.

My records showed that the last time I'd had my teeth checked was 11,600 years ago—when CO2 was at 265ppm. My 'planktic foraminiferal' tooth had reduced in size by 50% then, caused in part by a gradual 30% increase in CO2 concentrations over the preceding 6,000 years. 

My memory was coming back; I remembered that during my PETM, a large CO2 release caused my 'benthic foramanifer' tooth to completely disappear! The records insisted that the exact cause of this event (and others) is difficult to determine as 'environmental changes covaried' but I'm certain it was from OA. My records also reminded me about the golf ball that hit me in the jaw 65 million years ago, causing my 'planktic calcifier' to fall out, but somehow leaving my teeth corals intact.

That was about the time Dentist Albright returned to give me my results. Here they are:

Medical Report 2: Ocean Acidification

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm in the green but should I really be in the green if we all know that I'm going to be in the yellow shortly...

I'm particularly worried about my GBT. So is Dentist Albright who says she has proven that net community calcification is depressed compared with values expected for pre-industrial conditions, indicating OA may already be affecting my GBT replenishment.

A visiting dentist, Dentist De'ath (quite an appropriate name really) agreed, citing increased temperature as another contributing factor alongside decreased saturation rates of aragonite in my saliva. He also mentioned something about coral bleaching. I didn't know if that was good, like a cleaning product or something but by the tone of his voice it sounded bad. I didn't ask, as I'd had enough bad news for one day.

Looks like climate change really is OA's evil twin; maybe even worse. My teeth have always been a real source of pride, especially as they can be seen all the way from space.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Learning Human

Bluey here,

I think I get it! You guys I mean. I finally get why Dr IPCC, Dr Steffen and Nurse Mackay can't stop talking about humans, especially in relation to my health concerns, aka my 'planetary boundaries'.

Humans

As I operate on larger timescales than 2050 years, getting my head around the below video was challenging, but it provided a good starting point. It also contained a figure I can more readily relate to. In years, 10 billion is a little under my anticipated life expectancy.

Ok, there's a lot of you Homo sapiens, you like procreating and you enjoy consuming my natural resources. That's fine but I needed to find out more—something substantial, but not too substantial. Books, yes, but not big boring books.

Human History and Energy

I went for Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" because Mars recommended it. While it read suspiciously like a personal biography, it also contextualised humans, opening my eyes to their perspective, and hopefully broadening my planetary one.

Bryson’s masterpiece on humans, our universe and everything in between did what it said, it put nearly everything into perspective. He reminded me, and everyone else, of the majesty of me (ok, not me, mainly our cosmos and life itself). It inspired me to delve deeper.

Exploring the aspect of humans most relevant to me—their insatiable appetite for energy—was next. Daniel Yergin's "The Prize", not only revealed details of the human obsession with my organic deposits (the ones stored beneath my skin), 'fossil fuels' as they term them, it also helped me come to terms with their initial lack of awareness regarding the connection between GHG emissions and my temperature. It also revealed something else that could be equally worrying for my future well-being: 'human power struggles' and 'nuclear proliferation', but that's another story.

Bryson and Yergin revealed much, but I had an important task still to satisfy; getting to the bottom of a term Dr Steffen used in my initial consultation, but which I'd not properly understood.

The Anthropocene

My body has been through multiple 'epochs' since I coalesced into being around 4.5 billion years ago. Epochs are to me as years are to humans, 'eras' like human decades and 'eons' like childhood, middle-age etc. Unlike human years though, epochs are not uniform; they vary depending on geological 'signals'.

Source: International Commission on Stratigraphy 

According to Dr Steffen, my current (official) epoch, the Holocene (11,700 years BP) has already moved unofficially into the Anthropocene. The human signs are "everywhere" he says; the only contention amongst his colleagues is seemingly not if it's happened, but when it happened.

For me, this temporal triviality—Dr Steffen: 1945-1950 (artificial radionuclides), Dr Cruetzen Stoemer: ~1750-1800 (elevated CO2 and CH4 concentrations from the Industrial Revolution), Dr Ruddiman Thomson: 8000-5000 years BP (elevated CO2 and CH4 concentrations from forest clearance / rice irrigation respectively) and Dr Certeni Scalenghe: ~11,700 BP ('Holocene as Anthropocene')—does little more but reinforce a much more important point. Humans are my current epoch.

Source: National Geographic

Having spent two days learning human, I've come to a preliminary conclusion that this epoch might not last all that long for them, but from a personal perspective, I'll need to brace myself for longer-lasting consequences.

Yours for awhile,
Bluey

Specialist #1: The Most Qualified Doctor in the World (Climate Change)

Bluey here,

I went to the climate specialist yesterday. What an awesome experience, despite the not-so-promising test results, but we’ll get to all that soon. First though, I have to tell you guys about the amazing specialist Dr Steffen et al. referred me to.

My Specialist

Dr IPCC is the most experienced specialist I’ve ever come across. She’s only 28 years old, speaks all major languages, has PhDs in every field of earth sciences (not to mention all the traditional sciences and social sciences) and has over 100 different passports to her name.

More incredibly, she isn’t even working today. She’s taken the day off to volunteer talking me through my tests! That’s not all. Before I even arrived for the appointment, she’d already taken my temperature and a load of other ‘equally important’ tests. Technology these days.

As soon as I arrived, she sat me down and asked me to listen intently to what she had to say. I have summarised it all for you below:

Climate Background

Dr IPCC felt compelled to first provide me with some climate context so she introduced me to one of her nurses, Professor Mackay. He patiently took me through the underlying reasons why my temperature has varied over all these years. It was fascinating:

1) The path I take when I stroll around the Sun varies slightly each year, as do the body parts I expose. Nurse Mackay calls this ‘orbital forcing’ or the ‘Milankovitch cycles’, and says it was named after the Serbian scientist who studied how I walked a century ago. Yea, right. He broke the concept into three interrelated elements (for more information):

• The path I take when I walk around the sun ('eccentricity'); ~100,000 year cycle
• The angle of my body as I walk around the sun ('obliquity'); ~41,000 year cycle
• The direction of my head at any given point ('precession'); ~21,000 year cycle.

Milankovitch Cycles (Source: NASA)

2) The amount of energy emitted from the sun that hits my body. The nurse calls this ‘solar variability’. It's about how the sun's ‘solar irradiance’—which varies slightly—interacts with my atmosphere between my skin and my clothes (my 'troposphere') and above my clothes (my ‘stratosphere’). More on clothes below.

3) How often and powerfully I fart. The nurse reassured me that this was natural, calling this ‘volcanic activity’. It’s linked to how much particulate matter and sulphur aerosols I release into my immediate atmosphere. Sulphate aerosols, for instance, if they get up into my stratosphere, can cause a general ‘radiative’ cooling at my surface.

4) The role clothing has on temperature. Dr IPCC and Nurse Mackay refer to my clothes as ‘greenhouse gases’ (GHGs) and not just because they’re all green, because they’re not. Without my clothes, I’d be frozen at about -18°C. Instead, thanks to my clothes—mainly Cotton (CO2), Chino (CH4), Ninon (N2O), Organza (O3), Chiffon (CFCs) and even Hemp (Water Vapour)—trapping infrared heat, I’m pretty hospitable to what Dr IPCC calls ‘life’, averaging out around the 14°C mark. Temperatures at my different body parts, however, vary considerably.

Greenhouse effect (Source: NOAA) 

Finally, Dr IPCC began telling me about a species called Homo sapiens that started moving across my body between 60,000 to 125,000 years ago and—since about 11,000 years ago—‘literally blossomed’. I’d never heard of 'humans' but the Doctor insisted I get to know them.

Results

They’d not even ‘scratched the surface’ regarding the background natural variability stuff but as my appointment was only one hour, Dr IPCC moved on to explaining my test results.

The full results can be found here, however the medical summary is below:

Medical Report 1 - Anthropogenic Climate Change

So many questions. Who ‘on earth’ were these humans? Why are they adding more clothes (GHGs) to me? Is it bad to have a temperature? Just glancing at the results—and the rates of change over such a cosmologically insignificant time frame—it appears my temperature is about to increase. I’m not that worried yet though; nothing I haven’t coped with before—I’m always changing, albeit a bit slower than this ‘great acceleration’.

There were plenty of facts to digest, and many more to research. Dr IPCC helped immensely though, explaining that as I visited other specialists about my ‘planetary boundaries’, I'd learn more about this specific problem.

Next task? I was off to the library to research these humans.

Yours always,
Bluey

Bluey's Feeling Blue

Hi, my name's Pale Blue Dot. People call me Bluey. I'm four and a half billion years old and according to a few of my mates, I’m experiencing a minor mid-life crisis. Everyone gets one though, they say. I’m not so convinced because everything’s been going pretty smoothly—minus the odd hiccup—since my 'cambrian explosion' about 541 million years ago.

Either way, this blog is about working out whether or not I need to worry. One of my friends, Mars, thinks I'm fine. My other friend, Venus, isn’t so sure. She thinks I should be taking better care of myself.

Me, December 7, 1972 (Source: NASA)

Eventually, I made it down to my GP, Dr Steffen et al, who ran some initial tests. He came back a bit concerned so he's suggested I book in to see some specialists over the next few weeks. According to GP Steffen (Doc), who referenced my previous GP’s records (Dr Rockstrom et al), I could have a few things 'wrong' with me. I'm not sure why but he's nicknamed them ‘planetary boundaries’:

1. I've got a slight temperature but people think I'm crazy. The Doc calls it anthropogenic ‘Climate change’. One old man in the waiting room called it something different though: ‘Alarmism’. 
2. My teeth are sore and some individual teeth feel brittle. The Doc wants me to see the dentist. He says it could be one of an ‘Ocean’ of reasons, including ‘acidification’. Bit worrying, especially as I’m no exception—I hate dentists! 
3. My white blood cell count is a bit low. Doc calls it biodiversity loss or ‘Biosphere integrity’ or something. I’ve never heard of it. 
4. I dyed my hair blonde a month ago and people started asking questions. I said I just felt like a change. Doc calls it ‘Land-system change’. It confused me so I’m going to ask the psychologist about that one. 
5. I have a big mole on my bottom but I think it's benign. He mentioned something about ‘Stratospheric ozone depletion’ and a hole or he could have just said mole. Not sure. 
6. I've recently taken some stimulants (called P & N) to help me grow but I think there could be a few side effects I never saw coming. The side effects are called ‘Biochemical flows’. 
7. I’ve had a few minor ‘plumbing’ issues of late. The doc said it wasn’t major but I'll probably need to manage it. He euphemistically named it ‘Freshwater use’ so I wouldn’t get too embarrassed. 

The Doc even broke the results down visually (he said to ignore the question mark sections, for now):

Planetary Boundaries (Source: Science)

There you have it, plenty of things to get to the bottom of. By the way, apologies for all the medical jargon. Please check out my glossary page if you want to know more about any of the technical terms that the doc lost me on. I noted them down so you (and I) could refer back to them.

I’m not sure which specialist I’ve got first but I’ll be sure to update you straight away following my first appointment. I bet you’re itching to find out what’s wrong ;)

Yours always,
Bluey