Because at the altitudes you talk of there IS VERY LITTLE atmosphere AIR to start with...
Of course if you think you can breath in a vacuum by all means believe as you will.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Of course if you think you can breath in a vacuum by all means believe as you will.
No, there is very little OXYGEN. If, however, you were breathing pure oxygen, you would survive - because it is the partial pressure of oxygen, not the percentage of oxygen in the air, that matters.
Likewise, if you were 300 feet underwater and were breathing air (21% oxygen) you would quickly die. However, if you were breathing a mixture of gases that included a tiny percentage of oxygen (2%) you would be fine. Because, again, it is the partial pressure of oxygen, not the percentage of oxygen in what you are breathing, that matters.
Never said that.
Work environment concerns re: oxygen levels : pdf
http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/company/safetygram-17.pdf
http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/company/safetygram-17.pdf
"Warning: Exposure to atmospheres containing less than 10% oxygen can
rapidly overcome a person and bring about unconsciousness without
warning so they are incapable of helping themselves. Lack of sufficient
oxygen can cause serious injury or death."
True. Fortunately, since oxygen levels are remaining at 21%, there's no danger of that as the result of fossil fuel combustion in the atmosphere.
what is the minimum air pressure needed by humans to stay alive ?
What is the air pressure at 26000 feet?
23% of < 356 mb is what?
Certainly not enough volume of O2 or any other gasses to sustain just about anything let alone a human
Ever tried to suck in air through a tube to the atmosphere whilst swimming 2 feet under the surface? Nasty I can tell you....
The oxygen delivered at 26000 feet by the tank is at what pressure?
Ever heard of depressurization of a commercial jet at 30000ft?
Last edited:
Except you failed to mention:
"Breathing as little as one or two breaths of air containing too little oxygen can have serious and immediate effects, including unconsciousness. Because there are no warning signs of reduced oxygen concentrations, these environments are extremely dangerous"
and that these dead zones can and do exist:
"Oxygen-deficient atmospheres may exist in poorly ventilated areas, confined spaces, areas immediately out side confined spaces, enclosures and low-grade areas. When working in confined spaces, all the requirements of confined space regulations must be strictly followed.
Effective emergency procedures for entry and rescue can avoid serious injuries or fatalities. Low oxygen levels can also exist in
“open areas,” including areas with ventilation, laboratories, buildings and outside near equipment."
from same commercial article.
In PSI:
.9 PSI for body integrity
3 PSI ppO2 for sea level oxygen partial pressure
~1.5 PSI ppO2 to stay alive
About 5 PSI depending on weather, temp etc.
<82 mb
Right, that's absolutely true. If you walk into a tank of pure nitrogen, you could fall unconscious in seconds and die in minutes. A worker at NASA died this way when he walked into a fuel tank that was being flushed with nitrogen.
Also correct. If you have a liquid nitrogen spill in an office, or near a nitrogen tank, it could displace all the oxygen - which is very dangerous.
And again, this has nothing to do with reduction in atmospheric oxygen through combustion.
so you are saying that the 23 % is delivered at 23mb's when the atmospheric pressure is <356mb ...sorry but think again
No, the statement you just made is meaningless. Percentages are not "delivered" - partial pressures are.
Last post for a few hours.. ( thanks for the discussion btw)
We are also presuming that the figure of 23% O2 has some sort of veracity.
There are other measurements that state 21% O2
JUP and FJF place it even lower...in 2006
Given the dire circumstances facing the world with climate change etc, the threat of suffocation and human nature I would be highly skeptical that 23% is actually a valid percentage of atmospheric O2
Where do they get this figure from any way?
We are also presuming that the figure of 23% O2 has some sort of veracity.
There are other measurements that state 21% O2
JUP and FJF place it even lower...in 2006
Given the dire circumstances facing the world with climate change etc, the threat of suffocation and human nature I would be highly skeptical that 23% is actually a valid percentage of atmospheric O2
Where do they get this figure from any way?
By volume or weight? They are not the same. The atmosphere contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon and 0.039% carbon dioxide by volume. However, since oxygen is a little heavier than nitrogen, it is 23.10% of the atmosphere by weight.
It is by weight.
By measuring the composition of air in several places around the world. Dr. Ralph Keeling of Scripps is one of the leaders in this field.
It is easy to measure for any gas mix with O2 the only oxidizer. Just measure the pressure is a closed container before and after passing electric current thru wire in the container, is how this physicist would do it. I.e. as red hot wire grows thinner the resistance will increase. When that stops, turn the current off an let internal temperature return to the original temperature. The pressure will then be lower as all the O2 is now in the metal oxide. - I bet chemists have even better ways.
Your assumption that extinction will be by "suffocating" (lack of O2 or excess of CO2) is almost surely wrong. With AGW, both the peak temperature and humidity are increasing. When the wet bulb temp is 35C (95F) for an hour of exposure to that, you die. - internally over heat as can't dump to the environment your metabolic heat, even if just sitting in a chair.* Dogs can only perspire via their tongues, so they will all die before you who can perspire with most of you skin doing so.
Humans, not in "couch potato" mode but in their ancient state are really good running machines. Could run all day long after many animals that could not perspire via their skin. They eventually died of internal over heating. - I believe this is a main factor in why man became the dominate creature, not his bigger brain, which had not yet become "bigger."
Then he learned to cook roots etc. so didn't need to spend most of his awake hours munching on leaves etc. as apes do between his infrequent animal kills. With "free time" the discovery of cooking gave, his small brain became larger and useful and improved with use plus evolution selection, but it all started with being the world's best running machine.
* the rich will have air conditioning but that soon fails when linemen can't remove tree branches from wires etc. - no food delivered etc.
and when do think this end play scenario will start to be witnessed as happening?
Also curious as to Billvon's end play scenario?
Last edited:
It already is in progress, but now mainly by habitat destruction (and expanding human popultions are doing most of that, but not all cases instead of direct heat kills.) I.e. never before except when the meteor hit, killing the dinosaurs, etc, has there been such a rapid extinction of creatures as now! (Counting all the tiny ones, and plants, about 100 per day are going extinct!) some quite large ones like bears are dying out too. You probably know the polar bear will soon be gone, perhaps not that the penguins* too at the other pole. In the case of the Grizzly, it is the explosion of the pine bark beetle that is killing most. The explosion of that beetle population is a direct result of AGW. For more details see: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-global-warming-even-real.143423/page-5#post-3257846 I give three photos from prior posts, showing this so you can see it:
*http://finance.yahoo.com/news/meet-tiny-beetle-thats-killing-222817946.html said:
Hunched against the elements, ecologist Bill Fraser counts Adélie penguins. This colony dwindled from 320 breeding pairs to 54 between 1990 and 2004. Average winter temperatures here have increased nearly 9 degrees Fahrenheit over five decades, and sea ice has retreated by a fifth since the mid-1970s, depriving Adélies of an important feeding platform from which they hunt krill. "The Adélies are the canaries in the coal mine of climate change in the Antarctic," says Fraser
SUMMARY: Mother Nature's greatest mistake was the evolution of man's big brain. He will make most of her prior work go extinct with him.
The Bible is correct: "The meek* will inherit the earth."
* ("The meek" are the tiny nocturnal mice that live in much cooler burrows during the day and have huge surface to volume ratio for dumping metabolic heat.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Like, what happens in 100 years? CO2 will increase by a few hundred PPM. O2 will decrease by a few hundred PPM. Temperatures will be higher by several degrees; sea levels will be higher by about half a meter. This will cause more frequent catastrophic flooding. Droughts will be more frequent, and agriculture will be shifting north.
CO2 will still be rising but the rate will be slowing down since we will have run out of most of our fossil fuels. Electric vehicles will be more common, and the next generation of energy sources (solar power satellites, fusion, advanced fission) will be generating more and more of our power. Synthetic methane will play a larger role.
Links should be accompanied by some explanatory text.
First link, like most AGW deniers, notes that NYC area (NE in general) is setting new cold records, but not that most cities in Alaska are setting new records too. Some 40degrees F hotter than the older records! This is all to be an expected effect of AGW as I have explained several times: Briefly again:
West to East momentum of the Jet Stream has declined as the polar region is warming about five times faster /more degrees increase / than the mid latitudes. It is this thermal difference that drives the Jet Stream. So now the North/ South wander of the Jet Stream is greater. Artic air goes deeper into the south, but must be replaced by Warm Southern air going up to and above the Artic Cirle.
All strongly CONFIRMING the AGW, but deniers, like Photizo, are very selective in which facts they post links too. Breaking heat records by 40 degrees will not be mentioned - Cherry picking serves their cause, not truth.
His 2nd link from 1969 is more of the same cherry picking. Yes some back then have wrongly predicted an ice free Arctic Ocean about now, but the IPCC's early reports predicted that would be soon after 2100. All this shows is it is a very complex problem to model / predict about. I have used extrapolation of the trends to predict first ice free Artic Ocean day to be early fall of 2019 + or - two years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agriculture is probably not as transportable as might be assumed. It can get warmer in a hundred years, but not sunnier or less sunny, not frost free, not wetter or Mediterranean patterned in precipitation, and so forth. The forest of the North cannot be moved, only destroyed - with significant consequences. And one cannot make much dirt in that time, even with farming practices redesigned to do that.
North of the deep mollosoil of the American corn belt is Canadian Shield granite with a few inches of acidic red clay and a perched water table on it. North of the horizon to horizon rich river deposit fields of Bangladesh one finds the eagle eyries and escarpments of Bhutan. And so forth.
Agriculture will do some shifting, in places. It will also do some intensifying, and expensifying. And it will do some - more than a little - disappearing.
It is very unlikely, for example, that the river delta wet rice farming currently feeding much of SE Asia will prove transportable, or that the replacement intensification of wet rice farming in the uplands of northern Africa and similar places will sufficiently prosper under a shifting climate and unstable governance; and while the holy grail of salt water rice farming is being urgently sought by a few inadequately funded researchers, their prospects considered soberly at this moment are not rosy.
Such are the risks being run by the people who have created slander campaigns around lies told about stolen emails, and the rest of the noise posted in this thread by their tools. The benefits accrue to them. The costs are more widely distributed.
edit in: maybe try this - the reporting of bare links as dishonest and/or unethical postings. If enough do that, we might be able to get a standing policy of no bare links - which is standard policy on serious discussion forums.
Last edited: