...

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:19 pm A question: Why hasn't the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere declined? With the massive clearing of forests and the colossal amounts of fossil fuel being consumed 24/7 I would have expected a reduction in atmospheric oxygen...

Kortpeel

Now this part of the answer is not directed at Kortpeel.

The reason that the right-wing nutcakes want to obliterate and rewrite science (evolution, warming, dinosaur ages, stuff like that) is that most global warming deniers need the fuzziness of "intelligent Design" or Creationism to explain why we don't have to deal with global warming. They are ignorant fools wanting to die for God and they hate modern civilization. You have to think in the modern world. No one had to think in the medieval world.

That being said, I don't believe Kortpeel is part of this gang of loony-tunes.

I think he's asked a serious question. It's not a hard question to answer but it is involved.

First, we can all read a rather long article on Wikipedia about CO2 and the many ways it is used. It's like ubiquitous... it's everywhere. It's in everything. It's a building block of life itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Second, For those of us interested in global warming, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio ... atmosphere

The opening sentence about CO2 in the atmosphere. From Wiki: Carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 383 parts per million by volume or 582 parts per million by mass.

Now there is one part of the answer to Kortpeel's question. Atmospheric CO2 is measure in part per million. Oxygen is 21% of the atmosphere, 60 or 70 THOUSAND times greater in concentration than CO2.

If you want more involved science, you can get into the carbon cycle. That includes everything from coal formation to photosynthesis. If you really want to understand why modeling the carbon cycle and global warming is so hard, DIG IN HERE. It's an elegant cycle, a true work of art in nature, but it's not trivial. And mankind still does not understand all of it.

The second part of the question is to understand the toxicity of CO2.

Remember that 1,000,000 parts per million (PPM) is 1 percent (1%) -- by volume or mass or number of marbles hidden in a kid's ideal basement)...

Wiki says this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

Toxicity and its effects increase with the concentration of CO2, here given in volume percent of CO2 in the air:

* 1%, as can occur in a crowded auditorium with poor ventilation, can cause drowsiness with prolonged exposure.[2]

* At 2% it is mildly narcotic and causes increased blood pressure and pulse rate, and causes reduced hearing.[38]

* At about 5% it causes stimulation of the respiratory centre, dizziness, confusion and difficulty in breathing accompanied by headache and shortness of breath.[38]

* At about 8% it causes headache, sweating, dim vision, tremor and loss of consciousness after exposure for between five and ten minutes.[38]

Now global warming involves an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of 100 PPM maybe 200 ppm. That doesn't even bring the overall level up to a tenth of a percent by volume. So we would not notice that increase because it's much lower than even the 1% that we might notice in a crowded, poorly ventilated bar, a tunnel (big time in tunnels), music events, train stations, etc...

And that should explain why we don't notice the increased CO2.

To deal with oxygen deprivation is much harder.

a) dropping the oxygen concentration in air (increasing nitrogen will do it) is one form of oxygen deprivation.

b) Carbon monoxide models won't work because of the interaction of carbon monoxide with hemoglobin.

c) Nitrous oxide also enters the blood stream and becomes biologically active. NO2 is why viagra works. Plus we get giddy on NO2 (laughing gas for dentists).

d) Wikipedia's article of hypoxia (lack of oxygen) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_%28medical%29

doesn't do much for me other than make my head hurt with too much information of the scientific type. I don't recommend it.

But I can't find a good article explaining the effects of lowering the percentage of oxygen in the air and its effects on the human body. Sorry about that...

I do not think that a decrease of oxygen by 1% would be noticed on a routine basis. I don't have a source to confirm that. Let me say that LA Paz Bolivia is 13,000 feet in the air and we don't require supplemental oxygen. Airplanes are maintained at 8500 feet. I don't have a good way of back-calculating that to oxygen partial pressure (not concentration in this case, but partial pressure). We do carry oxygen bottles up to the peak of Mount Everest at 29,000 feet. The answer is somewhere in between those two heights above sea level man would notice the lack of oxygen.

If that stupid ice melts maybe we can grow more and drill for more oil.

Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:19 pm Two good questions by moi.

Personally I'm not convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. The sun has only to fart to produce major effects on Earth.

A question: Why hasn't the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere declined? With the massive clearing of forests and the colossal amounts of fossil fuel being consumed 24/7 I would have expected a reduction in atmospheric oxygen.

So far I haven't read anything about that. Does anyone know?

Kortpeel

Lower oxygen levels are generally observed in "red states", and around Washington DC.

sag111 (imported) wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:12 pm If that stupid ice melts maybe we can grow more and drill for more oil.

I don't see how; the net result will be less total land area above the new higher sea levels so less land on which to grow crops, and the "new crop land" will be in the northern latitudes with shorter growing seasons. [That's why despite Khrushchev's boasts, the Soviet Union would never out-produce Iowa because their best farmland, Ukraine, is roughly at the same parallel as Saskatchewan. Kiev is roughly as far north as Regina]

And BTW, all of our current offshore drilling will be farther out to sea and so deeper and more expensive. Anyway, unless you believe Sarah Palin's mooseshit about lots of oil in Alaska, you can drill for all the oil you want, but you won't find it. We've passed peak oil production, and it will increasingly become a rare commodity. Just like Todd Palin drilling Sarah, you'll most likely come up with a dry hole.

Shit Happens and Climate Changes.

That seems so self evident.

I suggest the tree hugging groupies try

a new cause:

Stop Continental Drift!

Does anyone deny our continents of our Earth are drifting.

And if we must have continental drift, why not do it in a manner

as benefits all life.

I mean Antarctica does too few species much good where it is.

Being a bi-lobed continent, let's leave the smaller part there for the

penguins and the krill and get the larger part to a more temperate

zone.

While we are at it, lets separate Latin America from American America.

Personally, I believe we should oppose all continental drift.

Has mankind effected climate.

Undoubtedly, yes.

Consider how desertification took place in those areas of the world with the earliest smelting of metals.

Smog today.

No doubt mankind has effected climate and thereby ecology.

I just do not accept 100% of global warming is man made.

Hope that makes sense.



Oppose continental drift.

drill baby drill and when that dries up drill again

It really doesn't matter what you or I believe is or isn't causing changes in climate. Change will happen, with or without any influence from human beings.

If anything, with nearly 7 billion people on Earth now, and each of them containing on average eight gallons of water, and each of them exhaling carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we can say for a fact that humans are holding in reserve over 56 billion gallons of water that is no longer in circulation, and are contributing untold volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which was not happening before there were so many people on earth. Does this impact the planet's weather? If you believe in the "cause and effect" theory that for every action there is a reaction, well then there must be some impact, which could be slight, or could be significant. I just wish I could return to Earth 200 years from now and find out who was right and wrong in their predictions.

sag111 (imported) wrote: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:53 pm drill baby drill and when that dries up drill again

sag,

Where did you find that WOMAN who said that?

Does she have a daughter?

Knowing you, her sister would be too old for me... perhaps a niece?

FACT: If everyone would just stop inhaleing there would be more oxygen in the atmosphere and if everyone would just stop exhaling there would be much less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And the debate would be over!