Climate-gate

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
    you see the problem with this is that we can say that the auditorium has an increase in CO2% and still consider O2 % to remain the same. This is a false position IMO.

    If ambient air has and increase of 10 % CO2 in a air gas population of 100% what gas is being reduced? Oxygen% must be effected by the increase in CO2.

    The reason we are gasping for air is because there is a lack of oxygen to breath IMO.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    CO2 is currently 400ppm.
    Let's say the CO2 level rose by 100 parts per million in the next 20 years.
    That would be an extra 0.1%, with a 0.1% fall in oxygen levels.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
    but only if we had not destroyed our forests, burned all that oxygen with air travel and basically use all that oxygen up in our fossil fuel use.
    Can't recall the O2 burned to CO2 created ratios
    also C02 is a lot heavier than O2 and will linger longer at low altitudes before dispersing, if I am not mistaken.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
    I guess what I am suggesting is that the use of fossil fuels and creation of excess CH4 means that we need to consider not only the CO2 increases but also the O2 consumption factor. Both of which are beyond the natural eco system we inhabit.

    "We always want for more oxygen as humans and any reduction in O2% is serious"
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,349
    I've seen that as well. I think they are referring to fires. Inside burning buildings, for example, oxygen content is significantly lower, and could easily hit 15% before the lack of oxygen caused the fire to die out. (Or they could be just making it up.)
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,349
    Because if O2 was converted to CO2 in sufficient quantities to get CO2 concentration up to even 5% you would be quickly rendered unconscious due to the CO2. However, the reduction in oxygen alone would barely be noticeable (equivalent to driving to the mountains.)
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,349
    The math simply does not work. You cannot "burn up" all the oxygen and then have it magically disappear.
    CO2 concentration does not change significantly with altitude.
     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
    ?

    nor does Oxygen%.
    So what's your point?
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,191
    or stepping outside from a crowded auditorium at sea level.
    One of the points that may be worth noting is that it is not CO2 that kills you, it is the lack of oxygen. Hypercapnia can be fatal due to the inability for the body to absorb oxygen into the blood due to excessive blood CO2.
    Both CO and CO2 can be instrumental in death due to the effect they have in lowering or replacing blood oxygen levels.

    Example:
    Nitrogen in it self is not poisonous to breath, as Billy T mentioned earlier it is only when oxygen is missing from the mix that death will occur.
    Work and health safety requires a minimum of 19.5% - 23% O2 (OSHA) to prevent work place injury. Up to an altitude where by diminished PP becomes an issue
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Removal of forest will reduce oxygen production.
    1 molecule of O2 will combine with one atom of C to make one molecule of CO2.
     
  15. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't think it is referring to fires.
    But, if it was true, people would be out with meters measuring it.
    Until I can see reliable measurements,

    I doubt it is true, so I retract it.
     
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Interesting figures.
    We use a lot of oxygen, don't we?

    I've changed my opinion on the unventilated room issue.
    We breathe 5 to 8 litres of air per minute.
    If a small room was totally unventilated, then a large number of people would breathe all the air at least once in a few hours, and that would lower the amount of oxygen considerably.

    Why don't people measure this stuff?????
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2015
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Airplanes are NOT making a significant decrease in O2 levels: In fact during the 5 months (Between 1st of May until 1st of September in Northern hemisphere, school is out and peak vacation flights occur.) when more are flying is when the CO2 levels are falling and O2 in the atmosphere is INCREASING.

    CO2 concentrations measured at Mauna Loa below. A good average of the conditions in the Northern hemisphere:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The reduction of CO2 by green plants in the 6 mid year months in the Northern Hemisphere over whelms not only the insignificant CO2 release by airplanes but all the terrestrial burning of fossil fuels. Transport, oil furnaces, and coal combustion making more than half of all the world's electrical power, are the main source of man's CO2 release,* but simple decay of plants when they lack sunlight (and decomposing bogs, etc.) dominate CO2 release; however the long term upward slope of the red curve is due to man. The amplitude of the purple seasonal variation oscillation in the graph has not changed.

    Stop exposing your ignorance about the "villain airplanes" burning up earth's O2.

    * Brazil is an exception as ~95% of electric power is hydro electric or non-fossil fuel based and most of the CO2 that comes out of car tail pipes was earlier removed from the air by the growing cane (There are some imported, expensive gasoline powered cars, but even "gasoline" in Brazil is 1/4 alcohol.) Diesel trucks & buses are the main transportation source of CO2 but the largest herd of rudiments in the world release more (mainly in their belches, but some from the other end as well.) However, there is no net effect**: All the carbon the cattle release, was earlier taken from the air by the grass they eat.
    Brazil's "carbon foot print" is negative unless there is very little rain in the Amazon! In 2005's drought the Amazon was a net source, not sink, for CO2 and probably is now, in the current drought. Fortunately the local rains seem to mainly have been delayed a couple of months, not cancelled. It has rained every day this week in Sao Paulo, and our main reservoir is now filled to 15.5% of capacity from a low of 5.5% a couple of months ago.

    ** Actually even the cows make a slight negative effect on CO2 release in the Southern Hemisphere, as Brazil exports many tons of beef (and chickens too) to the Northern Hemisphere.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2015
  18. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,349
    We have been through this. Both points are wrong. Again, do the math.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I want to say: "congrates" to photizo. Not only a post with more than just a bare link or two, but also comment and link showing melting in Antarctica is proceeding faster than previously thought! His link adds another mechanism for East Antarctica sea ice melting (to ones I noted in post 1678 in Jan 2015) part now here:
    Both melting, as they are in the process of doing, raise global sea level at least 9 meters (or 30 feet!) ...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2015
  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    I don't understand this thread.
    What are we arguing about?
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Not much. Especially if Photizo is switching to "AGW is real" side as his last post tends to indicate; and QQ stops posting his invented nonsense that needs to be shot down to not mislead the innocent readers.

    This thread could and should, sink into the archives. Go here:http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-global-warming-even-real.143423/page-17#post-3275029 to see two aspect of the real AGW problem (droughts & CH4 killing OH- with increasing half life in atmosphere) and to post 336, six posts later, to see more on the Arctic part of the CH4 problem.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 17, 2015
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That will teach them not to fly high in thin O2 - What's that? Oh: "Avian cholera is suspected." - not by QQ

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page