Why isn't oxygen levels being depleated from all the fossil fuel burning? Could it be that it is just so vast that we can't make a dent in it? And if that is so, what makes people think that producing C02 from burning can make a dent in the total levels of C02? If there is a rise it's probably other causes.
What are you implying? Perhaps that global warming is hoax?
For shame - how could anyone dare not believe Al Gore? (smile)
Bob-tx
On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:50:26 -0600, "Bob-tx" wrote Re Re: C02 scare:
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Says it all
dadiOH
Yep. It's clear. You failed lunch.
You have confused the carbon-sink of trees with CO2. Trees take in CO2 and release oxygen. They keep the carbon. When a tree burns or rots, the tree itself does not release CO2. It is the combustion or decay processes that generates the CO2 by combining carbon compounds from the tree with oxygen from the air to produce CO2.
The tree itself HAS no CO2 to release.
The theory that the increased heating of the oceans releases CO2 which then raises the concentration in the atmosphere fits perfectly with the data on CO2 and temperature we now have going back 700,000 years. There have been
3 seperate major cycles of CO2 increase and warming. In EVERY one of them the warming started a few hundred to about 1200 years BEFORE the increase in CO2. In other words, if CO2 causes the warming, then one would expect that CO2 levles should be going up before the temp rises. On the other hand, if the earth warms from other causes, let's say increased solar output, then it takes hundreds of years for it to slowly warm the oceans enough to release more CO2. The latter theory is supported by Prof Richard Lindzen at MIT, but you never hear a peep about it in the press.I've seen this point raised with some of the big scientists supporting man-made global warming and I have yet to hear any one of them give any explanation at all.
Right. The AlGore crowd has cause and effect exactly backwards. Increased taxes are a harder sell that way, though.
There was a thread in sci.electronics.design maybe a year or so ago that brought up this issue, and where I argued against someone doing an appropriate translation by a factor of nearly 5 in the wrong direction (to be off by a factor of about 23).
O2 content in the atmosphere has actually been measured to have decreased in recent decades, by an amount fairly consistent with that needed for combustion of fossil fuels in the same time stretch.
Meanwhile, the O2 needed to double atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial level (if nature does not remove any of the added CO2) is only 280 PPMV, which is about .13-.14 % of current atmospheric O2 content. In terms of what is available for humans and animals to breathe, that is equivalent to moving ~40-44 feet or ~12-13.5 meters uphill in elevation.
Then why is on-average year-in, year-out volcanic CO2 emissions worldwide only ~1.3-1.4 % of that from fossil fuel burning?
Can you cite this?
I have already annoyed a couple warmingists by saying, showing-my-work, how atmospheric CO2 increase achieves 50-60% as much global warming as "IPCC center track" ("my words") predicts. I have "somewhat-determined" that almost half of the global warming from 1973 to 2005 was from upswing of multidecadal oceanic oscillations, and a significant bit of the remainder was from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase other than CO2 that has majority-leveled-off.
I seem to think that "denialists" of anthropogenic global warming are easy to shoot down.
Admission that this exists invites debate of how much that exists,
and in the past 1-1.5 years, a debate partner of mine changed from "AGW-denialist" to skeptical-of-everything,
At this rate I insist that AGW is proven and for real, but most likely small enough to accomplish lowish in the lower half of IPCC projections. Also, I like to see global temperature trend stagnating to slightly cooling from 2005 to 2035 due to the expected atmospheric CO2 increase being unable to overcome downstroke of a couple multidecadal oceanic oscillations and a likely-near-repeat of the "Dalton minimum" of solar activity.
That part is true.
As it turns out, in recent decades the oceans as well as the atmosphere have been gaining CO2. For net effect in recent decades, nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Won't keep you from gasping. Or rather, lack of O2 won't cause the rest of us to gasp. Breathing is controlled based on CO2 in the blood, not O2. This is why people who accidentally enter a pure-N area (such as in volatile environments where the N blanket is used to prevent fire) just keel over and asphyxiate without ever noticing anything wrong -- their lungs can still get rid of the CO2, so the breathing control mechanisms don't notice anything wrong.
In the mean time, welcome to alt.home.repair.in-denial ...
Edward
Hey, my friend GB just acquired his very own oxygen machine so he will no longer have to pay $30.00 a month rental. He has plastic tubing snaked all over the house along with several reserve bottles of the life saving gas. :-)
TDD
But without oxygen, the CO2 in the blood stays there.
I know you're jealous, so I understand all this psuedo-science. Tell you what, when you're gasping, you can come over for a half hour every day for the first month or two. After that you're on your own.
AIDS was not even in the mainstream media until 1981 (when only dozens were ill). Sometime in 1982 the body count reached a dozen, and through much of 1982 the disease was known as GRID ("gay related immune disorder"). It was sometime in 1982 or 1983 when a specific virus became a prime suspect, and that virus was not called HIV back then, but HTLV-3. No earlier than 1983, the virus was renamed HIV.
So, I think your history is a little off.
I did say "around" . I'll cede to your superior knowledge of the timing but even if I'm off by a couple of years the point is still valid: Just because a bunch or even a majority of scientists assert something doesn't mean it's true.
well lots of scientists say pollution cant cause global warming / global change.
but it doesnt take a scientist to look at todays / recent weather to know something is up.....
scientists are human and humans make mistakes.
wouldnt it be something if global warming brought on some sort of ice age?
today the biggest storm on record is approaching california its expected to snow in hollywood....
how wierd is that??
Right. The hierarchy of science goes something like this:
Some examples are: The Theory of Universal Gravitation, the Theory of Electricity, the Theory of Evolution. After a couple of hundred years, a "theory" MAY rise to the level of "Law"
Some examples are: the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy (or Momentum), or F=ma.
In my view, Global Warming itself is in the Hypothesis stage, while man-made GW has barely reached the "Observational" level.
Dissolving CO2 in H20 yields H2CO3, carbonic acid. So the more CO2 the seas absorb, the more acidic they become. This has a deleterious affect on coral. And coral reefs are important habitats for fish and crustacean and barriers between the ocean waves and the land. Also, scientists figure there is a limit on how much CO2 the oceans can absorb, though opinions seem to differ on how high that limit is.
The damage--NOT devastation--to our lifestyle if we take measures against global warming now are minuscule compared to the devastation that would result if global warming continues unchecked--flooded cities, devastated ecosystems, etc. And if the whole thing's a big mistake, we're no worse off than people who pay fire-insurance premiums but never have a fire.
By the way, another big source of greenhouse gases is rising beef consumption. More cattle means more bovine flatulence, and methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
*Law - Politicians have decided that science doesn't matter. Taxes, being a good thing, *will* be imposed.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.