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

[Abraham3]

Abraham, let's get a few things straight.

Yes, let's.

1 - I created this thread. I know what the questions are here.

You do? Then why did you insist our exchange concerned O2 levels when the immediately prior exchange that prompted it was this:

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?

Eh ? ? ?

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.

Do you mean I've attempted to keep people on topic? Do you mean I have corrected blatantly faulty 'understandings' of basic physics, oceanography, meteorology and the scientific method? Well forgive the fuck out of me.

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.

I note you avoid that issue by scrupulously avoiding the statement of any position to which someone might hold you. I have presented more supporting evidence - and more of it peer reviewed - than almost anyone here. How many references have YOU provided for your claims? One? I will NOT, however, respond to worthless and unreasonable demands for material that is in the public domain, that has already been provided or that the demand-er wouldn't have a clue what to do with were it provided. Kosh and his demand for a "dataset and source code". How many languages do you think Kosh knows how to read, compile and link? Hmm.. maybe NONE. Or RetiredGySgt? Or ANYONE's demand for "PROOF" on a question of natural science. Don't give me such shit. If you want to really get involved in this question, take some time to actually learn the science involved (because it's fairly obvious this is all new to you), see if it supports the position you've decided to assume on political grounds and then come back and talk REAL shop. Insult University didn't prep you for anything but being a bit of a dick. See how nice it made me?

We are not talking about established and universally accepted science.

97% of climate scientists accept AGW. That is about as established and as accepted as it is possible to get. The idea that there is still uncertainty or disagreement among the pertinent scientists on the major points of AGW or the IPCC's position is a falsehood perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry and its agents and by elements of political conservatives who view this issue as political and believe they are fighting off an attack by liberals on their friends and supporters in the energy sector.

So, in reality, we most certainly ARE talking about accepted science.

This entire discussion is about points of view having substantial disagreement over what conclusions are indicated by the information available.

What substantial points of disagreement? The Greenhouse Effect? The origin of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? The actual value of the climate's temperature sensitivity to CO2? The history of global temperatures throughout the Holocene? The history of CO2 levels throughout the same period? And what available information makes ANY of those points uncertain or debatable?

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.

Because I am unlikely to admit what I am quite certain is untrue.

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 know you have. And I have used your central statement regarding the Greenhouse Effect to argue the point with other deniers who I thought might give your opinion more respect than they extend to mine. Thus I was a bit surprised to hear you say things like

"Prove it"

to this statement of mine:

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

and

"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"

to my statement "Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?"

and to this:

"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?"

answering this:

"Insufficient data. Possible fallacy of complex question. Possible fallacy of equivocation".

I am well aware that you can weasel yourself away from these, but to me they really give the impression that you would like the denier audience here to believe you are with them in their opposition to the Greenhouse Effect

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

HAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaa you are such a ridiculous ass!

 

[Old Rocks]

During the PT Extinction event, there was a massive injection of CH4 into the atmosphere from the impignment of the Siberian Trapps on major coal deposits in Siberia. More than likely, also massive outgassing of ocean clathrates. The oxygen level dropped from about 30% to less than 15%, maybe as low as 11%. Today, we are seeing the ocean clathrates in the Arctic Ocean outgassing at an increasing rate. Nothing like the PT extinction, but on a decadel time frame, CH4 is over 100 times an effective GHG as CO2, and it's oxidization in the atmosphere creates 2 H20 molecules, and 1 CO2 molecule. So, when it is gone, it leaves a legacy that carries on for centuries past it's 15 year atmospheric residence.

 

[SwimExpert]

During the PT Extinction event, there was a massive injection of CH4 into the atmosphere from the impignment of the Siberian Trapps on major coal deposits in Siberia.

Really? Is that what happened? That's amazing that you could share that with us. Because, ya know.....nobody else actually knows exactly what happened, we only have theories and several possible explanations, especially multi-factored explanations.

 

[Abraham3]

You seem to think that complex causation is justification for complete paralysis.

What is your position regarding AGW? You accept the Greenhouse Effect. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You accept that man is responsible for the rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Where, exactly, are you having trouble with the concept??

 

[SwimExpert]

You seem to think that complex causation is justification for complete paralysis.

And how in the world do you extract that wild conclusion?

Wait. Better yet, don't answer that. It really doesn't matter, and you trying to explain it would only serve to further demonstrate your inability to reason logically.

Complex causation does not indicate paralysis, as you call it. It does mean that focusing in on one small part of a possible cause is not a logically valid way to explain a complex phenomenon.

What is your position regarding AGW? You accept the Greenhouse Effect. You accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You accept that man is responsible for the rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Where, exactly, are you having trouble with the concept??

You don't even realize how ridiculous you sound. You won't realize it. I can't even explain it to you. Because your entirely dogmatic point of view on all of this precludes you from understanding how ridiculous you sound right now.

 

[Abraham3]

I say that because so far your standard answer to "what caused this?" is "we can't know because several things are involved."

 

[polarbear]

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?

So why don`t you use your calculator and tell "the group?
I`ld like to see you do that.
You would not even know where to begin!

While you are at it again with your linear milk maid math and your calculator it should be no problem to do away with the manifold pressure sensors etc that are installed on your 2.4 liter engine.
According to you we don`t even need any ECMs because it`s as simple as engine displacement divided by 4 if it`s a 4 stroke, times rpm = air intake in liters per minute...right?
Gee I wonder how come you could get your power brakes to work at all if it was as simple as a piston trying to suck in .6 liters of air and getting .6 liters...meaning there is no intake manifold pressure.
Not for the power breaks and none for crank case ventilation...
Fuck...do you have any idea how much smoke and oil gets blown out of the exhaust if the PCV valve does not work ?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTCaiOfr9ZQ"]BMW 525I SMOKE PROBLEM.....CVV PROBLEM ( PART 1 ) - YouTube[/ame]
and you would have to change the spark plugs and fill up the engine oil every few minutes.

Unbelievable how stupid you are...and you are trying to give us physics and math lessons !

 

[polarbear]

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?

Let me give you a hint how it`s done...
have you ever heard of Bernoulli's equation?

So then show your "little calculator exercise to the group" !
Do you know what the intake valve size is and how much the camshaft lifts the valve?
No ?
Do you know what the pressure drop is across the rest of the air intake and the air filter?
You don`t ?
Okay then try and plug in your stupid 4000 rpm and 2.4 liters numbers into that:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/1/a/61a840e7e6b25040825c61fd519756ae.png

And you aced math & physics..huuh ???

 

[Politico]

Good grief the cluelessness. It's like watching a bunch of five year olds try to operate an electron microscope.

 

[Old Rocks]

During the PT Extinction event, there was a massive injection of CH4 into the atmosphere from the impignment of the Siberian Trapps on major coal deposits in Siberia.

Really? Is that what happened? That's amazing that you could share that with us. Because, ya know.....nobody else actually knows exactly what happened, we only have theories and several possible explanations, especially multi-factored explanations.

Explosive eruption of coal and basalt and the end-Permian mass extinction

The end-Permian extinction decimated up to 95% of carbonate shell-bearing marine species and 80% of land animals. Isotopic excursions, dissolution of shallow marine carbonates, and the demise of carbonate shell-bearing organisms suggest global warming and ocean acidification. The temporal association of the extinction with the Siberia flood basalts at approximately 250 Ma is well known, and recent evidence suggests these flood basalts may have mobilized carbon in thick deposits of organic-rich sediments. Large isotopic excursions recorded in this period are potentially explained by rapid venting of coal-derived methane, which has primarily been attributed to metamorphism of coal by basaltic intrusion. However, recently discovered contemporaneous deposits of fly ash in northern Canada suggest large-scale combustion of coal as an additional mechanism for rapid release of carbon. This massive coal combustion may have resulted from explosive interaction with basalt sills of the Siberian Traps. Here we present physical analysis of explosive eruption of coal and basalt, demonstrating that it is a viable mechanism for global extinction. We describe and constrain the physics of this process including necessary magnitudes of basaltic intrusion, mixing and mobilization of coal and basalt, ascent to the surface, explosive combustion, and the atmospheric rise necessary for global distribution.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ancient mass extinction tied to torched coal

Siberian Traps coal burning has been suggested," they report.

What would be the result of dumping all that coal "fly" ash into the atmosphere to sift into the oceans? Poisoning, basically.

"With very low settling velocities, suspended coal ash particles form slurries that limit light penetration, whereas nutrients and toxic metals associated with fly ash are released into waters. Naturally occurring toxic and radioactive elements in coal are significantly concentrated into the fly ash component during combustion. Even with modern emission control systems that capture up to 99% of ash content at coal-fired power plants, trace elements released from the remaining 1% are suggested to equal the natural flux from rock weathering. Fly ash is known to stress aquatic ecosystems by generating anoxic conditions through limited photosynthesis and enhanced microbial activity, and metal toxicity. Given this, coal ash dispersed by the explosive Siberian Trap eruption would be expected to have an associated release of toxic elements in impacted water bodies where fly ash slurries developed," says the study

"Our research is the first to show direct evidence that massive volcanic eruptions – the largest the world has ever witnessed –caused massive coal combustion thus supporting models for significant generation of greenhouse gases at this time," says Grasby, in a statement. "It was a really bad time on Earth. In addition to these volcanoes causing fires through coal, the ash it spewed was highly toxic and was released in the land and water, potentially contributing to the worst extinction event in earth history."

 

[Old Rocks]

Siberia

The Geologic Record of the Sedimentary Sequence

Siberian flood-volcanic rocks are underlain almost everywhere by terrigenous, coal-bearing sedimentary rocks of the Tungusskaya Series, which is Middle Carboniferous to Upper Permian in age and commonly ranges in thickness from 100 - 150 m to 1400 m. As reviewed in Czamanske et al. (1998), systematic studies of paleogeographic and paleotectonic conditions during Tungusskaya Series accumulation indicate that its deposition was accompanied by well-balanced subsidence throughout the area occupied by well-developed, flood-volcanic sequences. The surrounding territories, which experienced denudation and fed this accumulation, subsequently experienced little or no flood-volcanic activity. The Permian rocks of the Tungusskaya Series include many of shallow-water, lagoonal character, including abundant coal beds. Indeed, these abundant coal beds (more than 24 of economic import, and as much as 36 m thick) have led to the suggestion that the sedimentary sequence immediately underlying the flood-volcanic sequence constitutes the greatest coal basin in the world. Pronounced inheritance from the mid-Cretaceous onward is observed in the evolution of the areas of accumulation and denudation, with no reorganization in the Late Permian that can be ascribed to the influence of a mantle plume (see Figures 2 - 6 in Czamanske et al., 1998).

 

[SwimExpert]

And other people have other theories. You can pick and choose your own delusions as much as you like, but reality will not change with you.

 

[Abraham3]

Delusions? You don't have the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about, do you.

 

[Old Rocks]

And other people have other theories. You can pick and choose your own delusions as much as you like, but reality will not change with you.

Well, if you are a semi-literate willfully ignorant troll, you can pick whatever you please. Those of us that prefer reality to unsupported flap-yap go with real evidence.

 

[SwimExpert]

Well, if you are a semi-literate willfully ignorant troll, you can pick whatever you please.

Absolutely. You and Abe do an excellent job of proving that.

 

[Kosh]

If the AGW mantra were true that CO2 drives climate then Mars would be far hotter than it is now plain and simple. Since we know that CO2 does not drive climate then we know that AGW is bunk.

 

[Abraham3]

Siberia

The Geologic Record of the Sedimentary Sequence

Siberian flood-volcanic rocks are underlain almost everywhere by terrigenous, coal-bearing sedimentary rocks of the Tungusskaya Series, which is Middle Carboniferous to Upper Permian in age and commonly ranges in thickness from 100 - 150 m to 1400 m. As reviewed in Czamanske et al. (1998), systematic studies of paleogeographic and paleotectonic conditions during Tungusskaya Series accumulation indicate that its deposition was accompanied by well-balanced subsidence throughout the area occupied by well-developed, flood-volcanic sequences. The surrounding territories, which experienced denudation and fed this accumulation, subsequently experienced little or no flood-volcanic activity. The Permian rocks of the Tungusskaya Series include many of shallow-water, lagoonal character, including abundant coal beds. Indeed, these abundant coal beds (more than 24 of economic import, and as much as 36 m thick) have led to the suggestion that the sedimentary sequence immediately underlying the flood-volcanic sequence constitutes the greatest coal basin in the world. Pronounced inheritance from the mid-Cretaceous onward is observed in the evolution of the areas of accumulation and denudation, with no reorganization in the Late Permian that can be ascribed to the influence of a mantle plume (see Figures 2 - 6 in Czamanske et al., 1998).

And other people have other theories. You can pick and choose your own delusions as much as you like, but reality will not change with you.

What other people have what other theories?

And on what grounds do you believe Old Rocks information on this topic to be a "delusion"?

 

[SwimExpert]

Listen kid, go to home room. Sit in class and learn a thing or two.

 

[Abraham3]

Your habit of responding to reasonable and needful questions with puerile insults grows tiresome. The obvious conclusion - that you will note virtually everyone here has already reached - is that you lack the science knowledge to participate in these discussions. Why, then, do you continue to embarrass yourself making the attempt??