De smeltende ijsparadox: hoe de gletsjers van Groenland LEVEN VOEDEN en geen onheil veroorzaken

08/19/2025 // Lance D Johnson // 1,2K Views

Tags: arctische veerkracht, koolstofdioxide, koolstofparadox, klimaatadaptatie, klimaatalarmisme, klimaatwetenschap, discoveries, Ecologie, environment, Fact Check, visserij heropleving, fjord-ecosystemen, glaciaal smeltwater, goede vervuiling, good science, groenlandse gletsjers, marine life, nutriëntenopwelling, ocean fertility, ocean health, fytoplanktonboom, echte onderzoeken, research, truth

Jarenlang is ons verteld dat smeltende ijskappen een apocalyptische gebeurtenis zijn, een  onvermijdelijke overgave aan een klimaatcatastrofe. Maar wat als het verhaal niet zo eenvoudig is? Wat als het smeltwater waar we bang voor zijn, in feite is  in de oceaan nieuw leven blazen?

Een baanbrekend door NASA gesteund onderzoek heeft dat wel gedaan het script op de terugtrekkende gletsjers van Groenland omgedraaid, waaruit blijkt dat hun afvoer niet alleen de zeespiegel verhoogt, maar ook de explosieve bloei van fytoplankton, de microscopische motoren van het zeeleven, aanwakkert. Dit proces is verre van een doodsklok, maar herinnert ons eraan dat de systemen van de aarde veel veerkrachtiger en onderling verbonden zijn dan onze doemscenario's suggereren. De vraag is niet of het ijs smelt (zoals altijd in cycli), maar of we wijs genoeg zijn om de kans in de dooi te zien.

Belangrijkste punten:

• Gletsjersmeltwater fungeert als een natuurlijke meststof, waardoor diepzeevoedingsstoffen zoals ijzer en nitraat naar de oppervlakte worden getild, waardoor de groei van fytoplankton in belangrijke Arctische gebieden met wel 40 procent wordt versterkt.
• Fytoplanktonbloei vormt de basis van het oceaanvoedselweb en ondersteunt krill, vis en walvissen. — betekent dat meer smelten, contra-intuïtief, de visserij zou kunnen stimuleren.
• De supercomputermodellen van NASA onthullen een delicaat evenwicht: terwijl smeltend ijs het vermogen van de oceaan om CO te absorberen vermindert? in sommige gebieden absorbeert het resulterende fytoplankton nog meer, waardoor een netto positief voor de koolstofcyclus ontstaat.
• Dit is geen klimaatinstorting, maar klimaatadaptatie. Het Noordpoolgebied heeft al millennia dramatische verschuivingen ondergaan, en het leven heeft consequent manieren gevonden om in beweging te gedijen.
• De echte dreiging is niet het smelten van ijs, maar menselijke inmenging — geo-engineeringprogramma's en industriële vervuiling verstoren natuurlijke processen veel meer dan natuurlijke terugtrekking van de gletsjers.

De verborgen premie in het smeltwater

Decennia lang is het verhaal rond de Groenlandse ijskap er een van verlies geweest: jaarlijks verdwijnt 293 miljard ton, een aantal dat zo groot is dat het de geest verdooft. Maar de natuur verspilt niet. Wanneer de meest actieve — van de Jakobshavn-gletsjer — Groenland in de zomer meer dan 300.000 liter zoetwater per seconde vrijgeeft, verdwijnt deze niet zomaar in de leegte. Het stort zich in de fjord als een omgekeerde geiser, waardoor voedingsstoffen uit de diepte worden opgewekt die al eeuwenlang zijn opgesloten.

“Zie het als het omdraaien van een tuin,” zegt Dustin Carroll, oceanograaf aan de San José State University en het Jet Propulsion Laboratory van NASA. “Het smeltwater werkt als een ploeg en brengt ijzer, nitraat en andere meststoffen naar boven waar fytoplankton naar hunkert.” Deze microscopisch kleine planten zijn, hoewel onzichtbaar voor het blote oog, de onbezongen helden van de oceaan. Ze voeden krill, dat vis voedt, die walvissen — en uiteindelijk ons voedt. Toen NASA-satellieten tussen 1998 en 2018 een stijging van 57 procent in de groei van fytoplankton in het Noordpoolgebied ontdekten, vermoedden wetenschappers dat gletsjersmelt de boosdoener was. Maar om het te bewijzen was een digitale diepe duik nodig.

Ga naar ECCO-Darwin, een supercomputermodel dat zo geavanceerd is dat het op zichzelf een “-laboratorium wordt genoemd.” Door drie decennia aan oceaangegevens in te nemen, — miljarden punten op het gebied van temperatuur, zoutgehalte en stroming —, simuleerde het team de chaotische dans van de natuurkunde en biologie in de fjorden van Groenland. Wat ze vonden was verbluffend: het drijfvermogen van het smeltwater zorgt voor een opwaartse stormloop, wat een voedingsfeest oplevert dat de groei van fytoplankton in de zomer met 15 tot 40 procent kan stimuleren.

Dit is niet alleen academische nieuwsgierigheid. Fytoplankton zijn de longen van de planeet en produceren de helft van de zuurstof die we inademen terwijl we CO opzuigen? In een wending van poëtische rechtvaardigheid, hetzelfde smeltwater dat de het vermogen van Ocean om koolstof op te lossen (door de waterchemie te veranderen) compenseert meer dan door organismen aan te wakkeren die CO opslokken? in een nog sneller tempo.

Een geschiedenis van ijs, leven en menselijke hoogmoed

Om te begrijpen waarom dit ertoe doet, moeten we — uitzoomen. De ijskap van Groenland is al miljoenen jaren toegenomen en afgenomen, lang voordat mensen fossiele brandstoffen begonnen te verbranden. Tijdens de Eemiaanse periode, ongeveer 125.000 jaar geleden, waren de temperaturen warmer dan nu, en was het Groenlandse ijs veel kleiner. Toch stortte het Noordpoolgebied niet in. In plaats daarvan paste het leven zich aan. Passagiersduiven verduisterden de Amerikaanse lucht met miljarden. Wolven en bevers bloeiden in aantallen die de huidige populaties in de schaduw stellen. De planeet was niet “gebroken” — het was anders.

Snel vooruit naar het heden, en ons wordt verteld dat elke mate van opwarming een existentiële bedreiging is. Maar het NASA-onderzoek suggereert dat natuurlijke systemen veel dynamischer zijn dan we ze toeschrijven. Het echte gevaar is niet het smelten van ijs. Het is onze nadruk op het controleren van de natuur in plaats van ermee te werken.

Denk eens aan de ironie: terwijl de Groenlandse gletsjers op natuurlijke wijze de oceaan bemesten, zijn door de mens geleide geo-engineeringprogramma's — zoals spuitbussen naar “cool” de planeet — verstoren weerpatronen, vergiftigen bodems en instortende insectenpopulaties. Dezelfde regeringen en bedrijven die klimaatalarmisme propageren, zijn vaak degenen die de ecologische schade versnellen door middel van industriële landbouw, chemische vervuiling en misplaatste “-oplossingen” die symptomen behandelen, niet oorzaken.

“Mensen raken in paniek als ze ijs zien smelten, maar ze realiseren zich niet dat smelten deel uitmaakt van de cyclus, zegt Michael Wood, hoofdauteur van het onderzoek. “Het Noordpoolgebied is altijd een plaats van extremen geweest. De vraag is: kunnen we stoppen met het verergeren ervan?”

De koolstofparadox: Waarom meer smelten minder CO zou kunnen betekenen?

Hier worden de dingen fascinerend. Uit het onderzoek bleek dat gletsjerafvoer ervoor zorgt dat fjordwater minder goed CO kan absorberen? vanuit de atmosfeer — in ieder geval in het begin. De instroom van zoet water verdunt de zoutheid, waardoor de chemie verandert. Maar dat is maar de helft van het verhaal.

De andere helft? Fytoplanktonbloei veroorzaakt door de voedingsstoffen in diezelfde afvoer veel meer CO absorberen? dan verliest de oceaan. . Het is een klassiek geval van checks and balances in de natuur. “We zien een netto positief voor de koolstofcyclus in deze regio's, legt ” Carroll uit. “Het systeem corrigeert zichzelf op manieren die we nog maar net beginnen te begrijpen.”

Dit daagt het doemscenario uit dat smeltend ijs een regelrechte ramp is. In werkelijkheid zijn de systemen van de aarde veerkrachtig als we ze laten bestaan. Het probleem doet zich voor wanneer we ons met die systemen bemoeien in naam van “, waardoor ze worden opgeslagen. Neem Nederland, waar boeren failliet gaan vanwege stikstofbeperkingen, ondanks het feit dat goed beheerd vee de bodemgezondheid kan herstellen. Of denk eens aan de ineenstorting van de mondiale visserij, niet door natuurlijke oorzaken, maar door overbevissing, plasticvervuiling en giftige afvoer. Alle door de mens veroorzaakte problemen.

De gletsjers van Groenland herinneren ons eraan dat verandering niet de vijandelijke onevenwichtigheid is. Het Noordpoolgebied heeft overleefde warmere periodes ervoor. Wat het niet heeft overleefd is vergiftiging op industriële schaal, van nanodeeltjes in de lucht tot microplastics in de diepzee.

Het Noordpoolgebied sterft niet. Het past zich aan. De vraag is of we ons ermee zullen aanpassen — of blijven doen alsof we de controle hebben.

Bronnen zijn onder meer:

WetenschapDaily.com

JPL.NASA.gov

Henoch, Brighteon.ai

Bron:  https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-08-19-greenland-glaciers-feed-life-not-cause-doom.html  

How Google Search Rankings Are Silencing Alternative Health Websites

 Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola

July 14, 2025

Story at-a-glance

 

·    Google slashed traffic to Mercola.com by 99.9%, replacing years of trusted content with pharma-backed search results that promote junk food and drugs as "healthcare" solutions

·    A new term, “nonaginate,” describes Google's tactic of wiping out 90% or more of alternative health websites’ visibility — a practice now threatening hundreds of holistic sources

·    Under the guise of safety, Google uses vague policies like EEAT and YMYL to bury licensed doctors and researchers who question mainstream pharmaceutical narratives

·    Google's so-called “quality raters” depend on Wikipedia for judgments about credibility — even though its anonymous editors openly oppose natural health and block factual corrections

·    To protect your health freedom and privacy, I recommend ditching all Google products — from search to Gmail — and switching to platforms that respect your data and independence

 

Have you noticed how it's getting more challenging to find non-mainstream health info in your search results lately? That's not your imagination — it's a deliberate tactic employed by Google to control the information you see. They're targeting websites that question pharmaceutical orthodoxy or promote natural approaches to health, even those that are run by licensed practitioners, researchers, and authors with longstanding reputations — myself included.

I've been sounding the alarm on Google's monopoly for several years now, and how they're gravely endangering the free-flow of information, particularly in the health industry. Google views alternative health as a threat to Big Pharma, and uses its search ranking system to severely reduce natural health websites' visibility and accessibility to the general public.

                       Video Link : https://youtu.be/lBHurtuxG7o 

'Nonagination' — Google's Attempt to Suppress Alternative Health Information

In his Substack page, Bill Dembski, a researcher, design theorist, and mathematician, wrote an extensive exposé on "the evilization of Google,"¹ and how this nefarious company strategically dismantled the reach and visibility of alternative health websites, including Mercola.com. Dembski introduced the term "nonaginate" to describe a tactic that goes far beyond censorship.²

•What does "nonaginate" mean? Dembski says this word was inspired by "decimate," which dates to the old Roman practice of eliminating "one-tenth of an unruly band of Roman soldiers." However, what Google does is so much worse, so using the word decimate is a grave understatement.

•It's much worse than decimation — Dembski then turned to the Latin term for 90, "nonaginta," and from here, he coined the word "nonaginate," saying that this was a better-suited word for what this company does.

"Nonaginate — hat tip to Google for inspiring the term — is thus defined as destroying at least ninety percent of a thing. Nonagination is therefore much more extreme than decimation (in decimation's strict literal sense of only destroying ten percent). Google prefers to nonaginate sites it doesn't like," he writes.

•I first-handedly experienced nonagination back in 2019 — Six years ago, on June 3, 2019, to be exact, Google implemented a broad "core update" that eliminated most Mercola.com pages from its search results. Virtually overnight, Google traffic to my site dropped by approximately 99.9%.

•Decades of valuable health information has been buried — Since 1997, Mercola.com has been considered a highly relevant source of health content, and has been one of the top natural health websites worldwide. But in one fell swoop, Google removed all our high-ranked results, and replaced them with health information from advertising companies that promote junk food and drugs instead.

Google Hides Behind Its So-Called 'Policies'

Mercola.com wasn't the only victim of nonagination — countless alternative health websites were also hit with similar penalties, losing their visibility, reach, and revenue streams. For many, this meant bankruptcy. Yet, Google does not publicly admit to this bias; instead, it hides behind abstract policy language.³

•Bias is hidden behind policies that claim neutrality — To justify its move to downrank alternative health websites, Google invokes content guidelines like "Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness" (EEAT), and "Your Money or Your Life" (YMYL).⁴

•On paper, these standards sound like they exist to protect users — But in practice, they create a false sense of objectivity that allows Google to bury dissenting voices without admitting to any ideological filtering. Even licensed physicians and researchers are downgraded if they suggest that healing might come from something other than patented drugs.

•This suppression is systemic, not incidental — EEAT and YMYL policies are enforced by both machine algorithms and human raters, all trained to flag anything outside of conventional dogma as untrustworthy — even if that information is backed by clinical experience or published studies.

•The result? Websites that promote natural, research-backed concepts like real food, mitochondrial health, sunlight exposure, or EMF reduction are treated the same way as snake oil scams. Google nonaginates them in the name of "safety."

 

Save This Article for Later - Get the PDF Now

Download PDF

From Crowdsourcing to Crowd Control

In the past, google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article's rankings on Google search would ascend based on the number of people who clicked on it. Basically, if you produced unique and high-quality content that matched what people were looking for, you were rewarded by ranking in the top of search results.

•To help you ideate this, here's an example — Let's say you have an article about Akkermansia that is found on the seventh page of Google's search results, and then your competitor also has an Akkermansia article on the fifth page of search results. If more people click on your article than your competitor's, your article will move up in rank. So, in a nutshell, these search results are based on popularity.

•But this is no longer the case — Now, Google is manually lowering the ranking of undesirable content with the help of "quality raters." These raters are basing their feedback largely on Wikipedia's assessment of the author or site (more on this in the next section).

•Who are these so-called quality raters? According to the company's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, they have 16,000 external search quality raters working for them to "provide ratings based on our guidelines and represent real users and their likely information needs, using their best judgment to represent their locale."⁵

•However, these raters are not Google employees — Rather, they are employed by external firms who have contracted them to Google. According to an article by ARS Technica:

"They're carefully trained and tested staff who can spend 40 hours per week logged into a system called Raterhub, which is owned and operated by Google. Every day, the raters complete dozens of short but exacting tasks that produce invaluable data about the usefulness of Google's ever-changing algorithms.

They contribute significantly to several Google and Android projects, from search and voice recognition to photos and personalization features."⁶

Google Quality Raters Rely on Wikipedia for 'Expertise' and 'Trustworthiness'

As mentioned earlier, one of the primary sources Google's quality raters are instructed to use when assessing the expertise, authoritativeness and trustworthiness of an author or website is Wikipedia, "the free encyclopedia."

•Wikipedia is highly biased against natural health — Unfortunately for many of us in the field of alternative health, Wikipedia's founder and editors are well-known to have extreme bias against natural health content and authors.

•What's more, the editors are completely anonymous — Wikipedia's editors are purely volunteers, and there are a few who have reached the most powerful editing status. They're known as the administrators. However, you will not know their identity as they hide behind pseudonyms and usernames.

So, basically, you have no idea whether the editors who are editing your content are truly experts on the topic. So how can we consider Wikipedia to be an authority of credibility when the editors are anonymous and uncredentialed?

Wikipedia Is Aggressive When It Comes to Censorship

While Google's censoring of content started just several years ago, Wikipedia has been censoring information and blocking editors since the beginning. About 1,000 users are blocked from the platform on any given day.

•Wikipedia is often edited by people with a very specific agenda — According to investigative journalist Sheryl Attkisson, anyone who tries to clarify or clear up inaccuracies on the site is simply blocked. The reality is a far cry from Wikipedia's public promise, which is to provide readers with unbiased information.

•Google is funding Wikipedia — Considering its history of bias and its incredibly effective blocking of opposing views, no matter how factual, it's not surprising that Wikipedia is Google's chosen arbiter of expertise and credibility. And Wikipedia is profiting from this partnership, financially speaking. In January 2019, Google donated $2 million to Wikimedia Endowment, Wikipedia's parent organization, and another $1.1 million to the Wikimedia Foundation.

•So what does this mean? Since Google's freelance raters rely on Wikipedia, it means the whole "quality rating" system they've set up is rotten from the ground up, as its quality raters are instructed to base their quality decisions on an already biased source.

Google Is the World's Biggest Monopoly

            Video Link: https://youtu.be/QIx-8ud4sFo

There's no doubt that Google is now one of the largest and clearest monopolies in the world. It monopolizes several different markets, including search and advertising. In the case of search, it controls 90% of the market; its closest competitor, Bing, only has 2% of the market.⁷ Google also controls about 60% of the global advertising revenue on the internet.

•Google's primary business is the harvesting of user data — Google catches every single thing you do online if you're using a Google-based feature, and this data is then used to build powerful personality profiles that are sold for profit and used in a variety of different ways.

This data gathering goes far beyond what most people realize was even possible and is one of the primary reasons smaller advertisers cannot compete — they don't have the user data Google has.

•Google also owns DeepMind, the world's greatest artificial intelligence (AI) company — With nearly 6,000 employees worldwide,⁸ many of them AI researchers, it is not hard for them to sort through all your data with their deep learning algorithms to detect patterns that can be exploited for profit.

•Unfortunately, many still fail to see the problem Google presents — Its services are useful and practical, making life easier in many ways, and more fun in others. However, the complete and utter loss of privacy is a high price to be paid for such conveniences. Ultimately, your user data and personal details can be used for everything from creating personalized advertising to AI-equipped robotic warfare applications.

Say Goodbye to Google Today

Today, being a conscious consumer includes making wise, informed decisions about technology, and one of the greatest personal data leaks in your life is Google. If you need an extensive list on just how pervasive Google is, I recommend reading my article, "Goodbye Google."

Here's a summary of action steps for you to take right now to protect your privacy. I recommend sharing them with your friends and family so they too can protect themselves from Google's data theft practices. 

•Swap out your browser — Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera instead. Everything you do on Chrome is surveilled, including keystrokes and every webpage you've ever visited. Brave is a great alternative that takes privacy seriously.

•Switch your search engine — Stop using Google search engines or any extension of Google, such as Bing or Yahoo, both of which draw search results from Google. Instead, use a default search engine that offers privacy, such as Presearch, Startpage, DuckDuckGo, Qwant and many others.

•Use a secure email — Close your Gmail account and switch to a secure email service like ProtonMail. If you have children, don't transfer their student Google account into a personal account once they're out of school.

•Switch to a secure document sharing service — Ditch Google Docs and use another alternative such as Zoho Office, Etherpad, CryptPad, OnlyOffice or Nuclino, all of which are recommended by NordVPN.⁹

•Delete all Google apps from your phone and purge Google hardware — Better yet, get a de-Googled phone. Several companies now offer them, including Above Phone.

•Avoid websites that use Google Analytics — To do that, you'll need to check the website's privacy policy and search for "Google." Websites are required to disclose if they use a third-party surveillance tool. If they use Google Analytics, ask them to switch!

•Use a secure messaging system — To keep your private communications private, use a messaging tool that provides end-to-end encryption, such as Signal.

•Use a virtual private network (VPN) such as NordVPN or Strong VPN — This is a must if you seek to preserve your online privacy.

•Don't use Google Home devices in your house or apartment — These devices record everything that occurs in your home, both speech and sounds such as brushing your teeth and boiling water, even when they appear to be inactive, and send that information back to Google. The same goes for Google's home thermostat Nest and Amazon's Alexa.

•Don't use an Android cellphone, as it's owned by Google.

•Ditch Siri, which draws all its answers from Google.

•Don't use Fitbit — It was recently purchased by Google and will provide them with all your physiological information and activity levels, in addition to everything else that Google already has on you.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Google's Search Rankings

Q: Why is it harder to find alternative health websites on Google?

A: Google's algorithm deliberately downranks websites that promote natural health approaches or question pharmaceutical narratives. Even licensed doctors are penalized if their content contradicts mainstream medical guidelines.

Q: What does the term "nonaginate" mean and how does it relate to this issue?

A: Coined by design theorist William Dembski, "nonaginate" means to destroy 90% or more of something. It describes how Google decimates the visibility of alternative health websites by wiping out their search traffic.

Q: How does Google justify removing these websites from top search results?

A: Google hides behind policies like EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness) and YMYL (Your Money or Your Life), claiming these filters protect users. In practice, they are used to silence dissenting health voices.

Q: Who decides what health content is trustworthy on Google?

A: Google employs 16,000 quality raters who rely heavily on Wikipedia to judge credibility. Since Wikipedia is openly biased against natural health, this creates a feedback loop of censorship and misinformation.

Q: What can I do to protect my access to reliable health information?

A: Avoid using Google products and search engines. Choose alternatives like DuckDuckGo for browsing, ProtonMail for email, and Opera for web access. Being intentional with your tech choices helps protect your privacy and access to honest health content.

 

Sources and References

·         ^1, 3 Substack, Bill Dembski, May 9, 2025

·         ² Mind Matters, May 15, 2025

·         ^4, 5 Google, Search Quality Rater Guidelines: An Overview

·         ⁶ Ars Technica, April 27, 2017

·         ⁷ CBS News, May 21, 2018

·         ⁸ Lead IQ, Deepmind

·         ⁹ NordVPN February 5, 2019µù

 

Bron: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/07/14/google-silencing-alternative-health-websites.aspx?cid_source=takecontrol&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20250814_TC