Oxygen

Besoeker · 16-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Wow that really makes co2 look like small beer then.

Bingo!!!
Now you see the need for appropriate units.
Maybe you are not as daft as you seem.

mkpdavies · 16-12-2006, 05:52 PM

No I beleive in seeing the full picture. If co2 compared to the rest of the atomosphere is such small beer, then there is some explaining to do, how this tiny proportion of gas, with tiny heat retention properties, being put out by humans in tiny amounts (in comparison with nature) and by nature itself in near historical low amounts, can possibly have the effects the doom mongers claim.

Besoeker · 16-12-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

No I beleive in seeing the full picture.

As I have already shown, if you choose the wrong units you will lose the full picture.

mkpdavies · 16-12-2006, 06:04 PM

On one level yes, but there is more than just what you want to see in this equation.

I want a FAIR comparison of how the atmosphere is made up over time. Not amplified for co2 and non amplified for o. That is skweing the view completely.

Find me ANY scale of o over time then.

mkpdavies · 16-12-2006, 06:45 PM

By the way big picture fans, here is the current make up of the earths atmosphere.

I'd like to see how this has changed and the temperature along side the big changes, before and after.

Hartlepool · 16-12-2006, 07:26 PM

So would a lot of us,well presented.

Aardvark · 17-12-2006, 11:00 AM

Besoeker,

I am aware that Pascals, or more accurately Hectopascals, equate to millibars, but if we are opposed to using the euro surely we should prefer UK units over French ones. We could have used inches of mercury like the Americans do (I was in error in my first post as I forgot that inches of mercury is used the other side of the Atlantic). :roll:

A

Aardvark · 17-12-2006, 11:26 AM

Matt,

You could ask the same question about tobacco smoke when it comes to quantities. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's population that tobacco smoke can cause heart disease, lung cancer and a range of other illnesses, yet most smokers breathe air unpolluted by tobacco carcinogens for their entire lives. Even when they inhale from a cigarette they are inhaling more air than tobacco fumes. A twenty a day man might only actually be smoking for less than an hour each day in total (probably much less since a drag only takes a few seconds) and will not have smoked for the first 10-15 years of his life, will not have smoked in his sleep etc. Are you willing to argue that because he has breathed air all his life it is the air and not the tobacco that causes the problems?

Miners died of pneumoconiosis (sp?) despite not spending all day, every day exposed to coal dust. One thread of blue or brown asbestos can cause mesothelioma. You can breathe pure air all your life, but inhale a couple of grains of polonium and see what happens.

I don't say the doom mongers are right, but I can readily accept that a small amount of something dangerous can have a deleterious effect beyond what you might reasonably expect when looking at the quantities.

Why do you expect someone else to provide the research you require on this forum which is remarkably devoid of scientists on a normal day (especially given the number of techies who are lurking hereabouts)? I think the question might be better asked over on the New Scientist website where someone might be able to explain, if the figures are not kept in the format you require why that is so.

I think the amount of O on the earth is relatively constant since to increase it must have come from somewhere and to decrease it must go to somewhere. There will be chemical processes taking place all the time, whether in your intestine or in fires or when rain water mixes with carbon particles. The existence of all of the visible earth is related to recent chemical processes, whether it be granite from volcanoes or chalk from calcified sea creatures or coal from plant carbons or soil from decayed leaves etc. Photosynthesis is happening a billion times a second in a forest near you.

You might try reading Bill Bryson's excellent book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It puts a lot of things in context and in a language that the non-scientists amongst us can readily understand.

I don't think, on this occasion, that the point you are trying to make is as important as you think it is. :wink:

mkpdavies · 17-12-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Why do you expect someone else to provide the research you require on this forum which is remarkably devoid of scientists on a normal day (especially given the number of techies who are lurking hereabouts)?

I do try and find it out myself, as I said before though I am failing to get the answers I want, so I thought someone might know here. I don't expect them too, but if they want to convince me of man made climate change, then it is in their interests to do so if they want.

Quote:

I don't think, on this occasion, that the point you are trying to make is as important as you think it is.

It's just one strand of many that prevent me from accepting loss of liberty and higher taxation. You can make anything into a scare story if you want, as long as you make it vague enough to be able to disprove.

Aardvark · 17-12-2006, 04:12 PM

I suppose, given that a lot of the research into CO2 levels is based on ice cores, that you could pursue that angle. If they can tell the CO2 level then surely they must define it as parts per million or something along those lines. I don't know where to look, but would suspect that key words such as Arctic, Antarctic, CO, research might google something for you.

I still think that you are unlikely to be successful, I'm pretty certain that I read somewhere that the amount of O was pretty much constant.

16-12-2006, 05:52 PM	#12 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	No I beleive in seeing the full picture. If co2 compared to the rest of the atomosphere is such small beer, then there is some explaining to do, how this tiny proportion of gas, with tiny heat retention properties, being put out by humans in tiny amounts (in comparison with nature) and by nature itself in near historical low amounts, can possibly have the effects the doom mongers claim. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

16-12-2006, 06:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	On one level yes, but there is more than just what you want to see in this equation. I want a FAIR comparison of how the atmosphere is made up over time. Not amplified for co2 and non amplified for o. That is skweing the view completely. Find me ANY scale of o over time then. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

16-12-2006, 06:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	By the way big picture fans, here is the current make up of the earths atmosphere. I'd like to see how this has changed and the temperature along side the big changes, before and after. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

16-12-2006, 07:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,443	So would a lot of us,well presented.

17-12-2006, 11:00 AM	#17 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,133	Besoeker, I am aware that Pascals, or more accurately Hectopascals, equate to millibars, but if we are opposed to using the euro surely we should prefer UK units over French ones. We could have used inches of mercury like the Americans do (I was in error in my first post as I forgot that inches of mercury is used the other side of the Atlantic). :roll: A

17-12-2006, 11:26 AM	#18 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,133	Matt, You could ask the same question about tobacco smoke when it comes to quantities. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world's population that tobacco smoke can cause heart disease, lung cancer and a range of other illnesses, yet most smokers breathe air unpolluted by tobacco carcinogens for their entire lives. Even when they inhale from a cigarette they are inhaling more air than tobacco fumes. A twenty a day man might only actually be smoking for less than an hour each day in total (probably much less since a drag only takes a few seconds) and will not have smoked for the first 10-15 years of his life, will not have smoked in his sleep etc. Are you willing to argue that because he has breathed air all his life it is the air and not the tobacco that causes the problems? Miners died of pneumoconiosis (sp?) despite not spending all day, every day exposed to coal dust. One thread of blue or brown asbestos can cause mesothelioma. You can breathe pure air all your life, but inhale a couple of grains of polonium and see what happens. I don't say the doom mongers are right, but I can readily accept that a small amount of something dangerous can have a deleterious effect beyond what you might reasonably expect when looking at the quantities. Why do you expect someone else to provide the research you require on this forum which is remarkably devoid of scientists on a normal day (especially given the number of techies who are lurking hereabouts)? I think the question might be better asked over on the New Scientist website where someone might be able to explain, if the figures are not kept in the format you require why that is so. I think the amount of O on the earth is relatively constant since to increase it must have come from somewhere and to decrease it must go to somewhere. There will be chemical processes taking place all the time, whether in your intestine or in fires or when rain water mixes with carbon particles. The existence of all of the visible earth is related to recent chemical processes, whether it be granite from volcanoes or chalk from calcified sea creatures or coal from plant carbons or soil from decayed leaves etc. Photosynthesis is happening a billion times a second in a forest near you. You might try reading Bill Bryson's excellent book 'A Short History of Nearly Everything'. It puts a lot of things in context and in a language that the non-scientists amongst us can readily understand. I don't think, on this occasion, that the point you are trying to make is as important as you think it is. :wink:

17-12-2006, 04:12 PM	#20 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,133	I suppose, given that a lot of the research into CO2 levels is based on ice cores, that you could pursue that angle. If they can tell the CO2 level then surely they must define it as parts per million or something along those lines. I don't know where to look, but would suspect that key words such as Arctic, Antarctic, CO, research might google something for you. I still think that you are unlikely to be successful, I'm pretty certain that I read somewhere that the amount of O was pretty much constant.