We have more CO2. So what's our reduced level of O2?

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
And why are no scientists talking about our rapidly disappearing supply of oxygen in the air?
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Alright, I'll bite. Why aren't they?

Could it have something to do with the 600:1 ratio of O2 to CO2? Could it have something to do with the CO2 simply coming out of solution from warming oceans, rivers and lakes?

Here's a little calculator exercise for the group. How much air passes through a 2.4 liter, 4 cylinder engine operating at 4,000 rpm for four hours per weekday for one year?
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Could it have something to do with the 600:1 ratio of O2 to CO2? Could it have something to do with the CO2 simply coming out of solution from warming oceans, rivers and lakes?
So what you're saying then is that human activity is not causing climate change, or driving changes in atmospheric composition. Ah, very interesting.
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Don't be an idiot. I'm saying no such thing.
You don't realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying. Here let me explain. First, let's clarify your position. If I understand correctly, you claim as true the following points, yes?

1. Human consumption of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

2. This human activity causes an increase in greenhouse effect.

3. This increase in greenhouse effect causes an increase in world wide temperatures.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
No 2 should read "this increase in CO2 levels causes an increase in the Greenhouse Effect". But proceed.
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
The burning of fossil fuels combines carbon from the fuel with available (from the atmosphere) oxygen, to emit CO2.

1 C + 1 O2 = 1 CO2

Thus, for every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels, one molecule of oxygen is removed from the atmosphere. An equal exchange occurs.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Really? Is that how that works? Thank goodness you're going slow.
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Yes, that's how it goes. So why don't we have ganders of scientists raising the alarm about our rapidly decreasing oxygen supply?
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Yes, that's how it goes. So why don't we have ganders of scientists raising the alarm about our rapidly decreasing oxygen supply?
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2. Getting it from 400 ppm to 500 ppm - ignoring sequestration release effects - would consume 0.04% of the world's O2. Now taking the real world into account, a significant amount of the CO2 required to get to 500 ppm is going to come from thawing tundra and warming oceans, so even LESS of the world's oxygen will be consumed.

Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
So you're saying it's just not relevant?

Now taking the real world into account, a significant amount of the CO2 required to get to 500 ppm is going to come from thawing tundra and warming oceans, so even LESS of the world's oxygen will be consumed.
So it's not human activity that is the main driver. It's natural processes.

Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
I'm sure I could think up some colorful things to say if that's what you prefer. :D
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
So you're saying it's just not relevant?
What happened to the oh-so-smart guy? Are you his evil and ignorant twin? Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.

Now taking the real world into account, a significant amount of the CO2 required to get to 500 ppm is going to come from thawing tundra and warming oceans, so even LESS of the world's oxygen will be consumed.
So it's not human activity that is the main driver. It's natural processes.
Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds? The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2. A positive feedback is taking place.

Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
I'm sure I could think up some colorful things to say if that's what you prefer. :D
I would have preferred some better science.

So, how about describing your position on a few issues:

1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.

2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?

3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
 
Last edited:
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.
The oxygen depletion, Skippy. Keep up with the pace.

Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds?
Now you're just baiting me to insult you. It's killing you that I won't, isn't it?

The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2.
Prove it.

I would have preferred some better science.
Welcome to my world.

1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.
Insufficient data. We really can't know with meaningful precision what CO2 levels were 100 years ago, or 200 years ago. We also can't really know the natural stability of CO2 levels over geologically microscopic time spans. It is possible that large spikes and dips in CO2 levels, over time spans measured in years or decades, has been an entirely natural occurrence for hundreds of millions or possibly billions of years.

We also don't have meaningful measures of the magnitude of total various methods by which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere. This prevents us knowing whether any human activity has caused increases in total atmospheric CO2, or whether natural mechanisms eliminate more CO2 than human "emissions" produces. If it does, than any increase is clearly and indisputably driven by non human causes.

Even if we assume that such an increase in CO2 level has occurred, and that CO2 levels remain generally stable and are not prone to substantial spikes or dips across geologically microscopic time frames, human ecological activity is a much more likely candidate.

2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?
Invalid question, logical fallacy of the complex question. A "yes" answer implies affirmation that differences in "greenhouse" warming are directly or substantially due to differences in CO2 levels, despite such affirmation of the latter premise not being necessary for the former to be affirmed.

3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Insufficient data. Possible fallacy of complex question. Possible fallacy of equivocation.

CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases, and only accounts for a quarter of total greenhouse effects. Either a yes or no answer assumes points described above where insufficient data exists to establish definitive conclusions.
 

Kosh

Quick Look Over There!
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
24,717
Reaction score
2,645
Points
280
Location
Everywhere but nowhere
Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
So you're saying it's just not relevant?
What happened to the oh-so-smart guy? Are you his evil and ignorant twin? Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.



Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds? The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2. A positive feedback is taking place.

Why did you bring this up? Was this your attempt to get away from your continuous string of insults and try to argue some science?
I'm sure I could think up some colorful things to say if that's what you prefer. :D
I would have preferred some better science.

So, how about describing your position on a few issues:

1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.

2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?

3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Notice how the AGW cultists use "Do you believe " as to show that AGW is belief not based in science.
 

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Of course its relevant. It's raising the Earth's temperature.
The oxygen depletion, Skippy. Keep up with the pace.
How about YOU keeping up. The question here was CO2.

Do you actually believe that's what I said or that I'm so stupid I can't retain a thought for more than a few seconds?
Now you're just baiting me to insult you. It's killing you that I won't, isn't it?
I wouldn't, even were that the case, but so far the entirety of our conversations this evening have been an insult to me and to whatever competency this board possesses. If you're going to make an entrance like you did when you arrived here, your C-game better be acceptable and A and B out of the park. This has been nothing but pathetic.

The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2.
Prove it.
Prove? Prove? I've no idea in what topic your education lay, but it wasn't in the sciences, was it. The case for human causation has already been laid out a thousand times. If you want to see my case, go read AR5 at ipcc.ch.

1) Do you believe human emissions are responsible for the majority of the increase above 280 ppm.
Insufficient data. We really can't know with meaningful precision what CO2 levels were 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.
We have more than sufficient data, particularly since I only asked you about the "majority"

We also can't really know the natural stability of CO2 levels over geologically microscopic time spans.
You're repeating yourself with hyperbole

It is possible that large spikes and dips in CO2 levels, over time spans measured in years or decades, has been an entirely natural occurrence for hundreds of millions or possibly billions of years.
Are you not familiar with the Vostok ice cores? EPICA? Concordia Station? Given the data from those cores and keeping in mind that if we stopped emitting CO2 right NOW, the levels would not drop back to 280 ppm for centuries, what you're suggesting is a natural function that creates unnaturally sharp spikes no more frequently than every million years or so. You're also ignoring the simple book keeping that tallied up the amount of fossil fuel we have burned and then calculated the amount of CO2 that would produce. You're also ignoring the isotopic analysis that shows that 120 ppm (400-280) of the CO2 in our atmosphere originated with the combustion of fossil fuel - not biological transpiration.

We also don't have meaningful measures of the magnitude of total various methods by which nature removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
You talk like someone completely unfamiliar with this topic.

This prevents us knowing whether any human activity has caused increases in total atmospheric CO2, or whether natural mechanisms eliminate more CO2 than human "emissions" produces. If it does, than any increase is clearly and indisputably driven by non human causes.
If such a mechanism existed, how did CO2 levels stay where they were at prior to the Industrial Revolution? And don't flaunt your ignorance by trying to tell me we can't know what those levels were.

Even if we assume that such an increase in CO2 level has occurred, and that CO2 levels remain generally stable and are not prone to substantial spikes or dips across geologically microscopic time frames, human ecological activity is a much more likely candidate.
Human ecological activity? I want you to spell out precisely what you mean by that term and then explain to us why you think it MORE LIKELY to have produced the many billions of tons of CO2 that have been added to the atmosphere and the oceans in the last century and a half. Particularly when (again) isotopic analysis shows that 120 ppm of that CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion. Here, from Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anthropogenic CO2 increase

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human activity.[25] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[25] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling them to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.


2) Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?
Invalid question, logical fallacy of the complex question. A "yes" answer implies affirmation that differences in "greenhouse" warming are directly or substantially due to differences in CO2 levels, despite such affirmation of the latter premise not being necessary for the former to be affirmed.
So, you've fallen to a rejection of the Greenhouse Effect? You also failed to explain why you couldn't answer "no".

3) Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?
Insufficient data. Possible fallacy of complex question. Possible fallacy of equivocation.
I didn't ask what you KNEW, I asked what you believed. They are not the same thing.

CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases, and only accounts for a quarter of total greenhouse effects. Either a yes or no answer assumes points described above where insufficient data exists to establish definitive conclusions.
CO2 is the only GHG whose environmental concentration (air and sea) has changed significantly over the period of interest and that change is sufficient to have caused the observed warming.

Read AR5.
 
Last edited:

Abraham3

Rookie
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
4,289
Reaction score
164
Points
0
Unlike the always fresh, well thought out and well presented material we get from you every day.
 
OP
S

SwimExpert

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
16,247
Reaction score
1,674
Points
280
Abraham, let's get a few things straight.

1 - I created this thread. I know what the questions are here. You've done this over and over again on this forum. You insist on trying to control other people's responses and being the only person who can lay out the points for discussion.

2 - When someone asks you to provide support for your position logic dictates that you must support your position. Simply saying that someone else has "proven" it is insufficient. We are not talking about established and universally accepted science. This entire discussion is about points of view having substantial disagreement over what conclusions are indicated by the information available. You fail to admit that the cornerstone of the skeptical position regarding AGW is scientifically based misgivings regarding the validity of the "science" as it has been measured, collected, quantified, interpreted, and ultimately assembled toward the conclusions at hand.

3 - You continue to deliberately misrepresent what I and others say. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, I have never said th greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact, I have been quite explicit to the contrary.

I gave you a chance here. You've blown it. Go away.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,380
Reaction score
13,977
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Don't be an idiot. I'm saying no such thing.
You don't realize it, but that's exactly what you're saying. Here let me explain. First, let's clarify your position. If I understand correctly, you claim as true the following points, yes?

1. Human consumption of fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

2. This human activity causes an increase in greenhouse effect.

3. This increase in greenhouse effect causes an increase in world wide temperatures.
Actually they HAVE measured miniscules reductions in O2 atmos readings. Small but trendy. I KNOW you are capable of looking into this. What it MEANS? That chemistry and atmos science works as described, but the MAGNITUDE of the effect on a Global scale is yet to be resolved.
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
22,477
Reaction score
4,599
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises | Blogcritics
---
"So the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1, 2005 would have been (35.3)/(37050)x100 = 0.095% of the preindustrial amount."
---

Took me all of a minute to google that up. Some folks are apparently too lazy to do the same. Curious, since they claim to think it's such a burning issue.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top