Global Warming New York | Search results for "picture"

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags: damage, jury, strong, coal, global

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags: damage, jury, strong, coal, global

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.] Animals that live in cold climates tend to have stubby limbs--shorter arms and legs--even smaller ears and tails. Picture a penguin and you’ll see what I mean. Biologists have long assumed that these stumpy appendages are an evolutionary adaptation. Shorter extremities minimize heat loss, so animals that are more compact are better suited to the cold. [More] Carbon Dioxide and Climate Editor's Note: We are posting this article from our July 1959 issue to offer an historical perspective on some of the issues being discussed at the United Nations Framework Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland, which began December 1 and runs through December 12. The theories that explain worldwide climate change are almost as varied as the weather. The more familiar ones attribute changes of climate to Olympian forces that range from geological upheavals and dust-belching volcanoes to long-term variations in the radiation of the sun and eccentricities in the orbit of the earth. Only the so-called carbon dioxide theory takes account of the possibility that human activities may have some effect on climate. This theory suggests that in the present century man is unwittingly raising the temperature of the earth by his industrial and agricultural activities. [More]

Tags: climate, theory, activities, shorter, long

Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.” When Science Fiction Morphed Into Politics Readers trusted Crichton to signal exaggerations. He may have fallen short at the end.

Tags: bear, picture, trusted, readers, morphed

Two novels set in a chilling future where civilization barely survives: “The Dead and the Gone” and “The Hunger Games.” Cuddly Creatures Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.”

Tags: bear, picture, books, fanciful, sad

Two novels set in a chilling future where civilization barely survives: “The Dead and the Gone” and “The Hunger Games.” Cuddly Creatures Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.”

Tags: bear, picture, books, fanciful, sad

Two novels set in a chilling future where civilization barely survives: “The Dead and the Gone” and “The Hunger Games.” Cuddly Creatures Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.”

Tags: bear, picture, books, fanciful, sad

Two novels set in a chilling future where civilization barely survives: “The Dead and the Gone” and “The Hunger Games.” Cuddly Creatures Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.”

Tags: bear, picture, books, fanciful, sad

Two novels set in a chilling future where civilization barely survives: “The Dead and the Gone” and “The Hunger Games.” Cuddly Creatures Three fanciful picture books about bears, and one sad one about global warming: “A Visitor for Bear,”“Bear’s Picture,”“Wonder Bear,” and “Ice Bears.”

Tags: bear, picture, books, fanciful, sad

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]  For accurate weather forecasting and climate analysis, researchers need the best models possible about how the air circulates above the earth. And a new study is challenging the conventional picture of the planet’s air movements. Previous theories pointed to two large circular systems--air rises at the warm equator and then travels toward either pole, where it chills and falls. But the new study posits that there are actually four distinct air masses, two north of the equator and two south. The work appears in the August 21st issue of the journal Science.  [More] Fewer April Showers for U.S. Southwest as Climate Changes The already parched U.S. Southwest is drying up even more, at least in early spring, because of climate change. A new study in Geophysical Research Letters shows that since 1978, the jet stream that brings rainstorms from the Pacific over the western U.S. has been shifting northward--and so has the rain and snow. [More]

Tags: air, climate, study, southwest, equator

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--And How It Can Renew America. Plus, we'll test your knowledge about some recent science in the news. Web sites mentioned in this episode include www.thomaslfriedman.com Podcast Transcription [More] A Deep Thaw: How Much Will Vanishing Glaciers Raise Sea Levels? Greenland, the world's largest island, holds enough to raise global sea levels by 23 feet (seven meters). Add the ice sheets of Antarctica and the oceans would deepen more than 200 feet (60 meters). Satellite measurements from space and speed measurements on land confirm that Greenland's glaciers are melting and on the move. And although the picture is less clear in Antarctica, the global warming seems to be having an impact there, too. So the question is: How much--and how soon--will sea level rise? [More]

Tags: level, sea, ice, tom, global

Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Tom Friedman discusses his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--And How It Can Renew America. Plus, we'll test your knowledge about some recent science in the news. Web sites mentioned in this episode include www.thomaslfriedman.com Podcast Transcription [More] A Deep Thaw: How Much Will Vanishing Glaciers Raise Sea Levels? Greenland, the world's largest island, holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by 23 feet (seven meters). Add the ice sheets of Antarctica and the oceans would deepen more than 200 feet (60 meters). Satellite measurements from space and speed measurements on land confirm that Greenland's glaciers are melting and on the move. And although the picture is less clear in Antarctica, the global warming seems to be having an impact there, too. So the question is: How much--and how soon--will sea level rise? [More]

Tags: level, sea, ice, tom, global

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags:

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal damage is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags:

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal damage is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags:

A UK jury has decided that breaking the law and causing large scale criminal damage is justifiable in the name of climate change alarmism. Here is how The Independent reported it: The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners werejustified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-firedpower station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will haveshocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone CrownCourt cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage. Jurorsaccepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damageproperty at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greaterdamage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" underthe Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property toprevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of aburning house to tackle a fire. The not-guilty verdict, deliveredafter two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises thestakes for the most pressing issue on Britain's green agenda and couldencourage further direct action. Of course, this is only one idiot jury. But it can set a precedent unless the legal authorities determine to overturn it at law. Let us hope EOn has the sense to appeal.  More than that. Let us hope that these Greenepeace anarchists don't find out where we live as, it seems we in the UK who do not subscribe to alarmist GW theory, may be in real danger of seeing our houses and cars vandalised - without legal redress.  For the record . I have written a peace which sets out the opposite case and showing plainly why a coal-fired Kingsnorth should get the go ahead and drawing the analogy with a massive coal-fired plant in Western India given the go aherad because it will drag around 16 million out of abject poverty. Therein lies the bigger human picture. One version is due to appear in the magazine Energy Tribune (fo whom I am a features writer) in October or November. Another is sitting with an editor in a British magazine (so don't hold your breath for that one. ) US Old Farmers Almaanac 2009 Predicts Colder Winter - And Global Cooling Of course, it is not just the popular science and mass media that is hot on prophetic insight (if lousy on facts) but The Old Farmers Almanac -- which at least has a real stake in knowing -- predicts too. And they predict not only a colder 2008-9 winter, but global cooling over the next 50 years. Go here to USA Today for more.

Tags:

The excellent Phillip Stott raises a basic question that should concern all who demand truth from the mass media: why is the media bullishly promoting a 'current global warming" when all the science points to the fact there has been no global warming since at all 1998.  I have long said that it is not the science that is the problem rather it is the media itself which promotes a thoroughly false understaing of science, expecially on the issue of climate science. Phillip here calls it 'cognitive dissonance'. I call it 'too thick too grasp truth, too dishonest (being detrimental to audience ratings) to report it'. But it pretty much amounts to the same thing. But here it is in Phillip's words: I must ask a very serious and urgent question of our media. Whydo you continue to talk glibly about current climate ‘warming’ when itis now widely acknowledged that there has been no ‘global warming’ forthe last ten years, a cooling trend that many think may continue for atleast another ten years? How can you talk of the climate ‘warming’ when, on the key measures, it isn’t? And now a leading Mexican scientist is even predicting that we may enter another ‘Little Ice Age’ - a ‘pequeña era [edad] de hielo’. Suchmedia behaviour exhibits a classic condition known as ‘cognitivedissonance’. This is experienced when belief in a grand narrativepersists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin tocontradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, our media have come tohave a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have so many politiciansand activists. They are terrified that the public may begin to questioneverything if climate is acknowledged, on air and in the press, not tobe playing ball with their pet trope. For the full piece go to Global Warming Politics . Now Oxygen Crisis Threatens Us All, reports Guardian Having breathing problems. Forget obesity, that could just be a government cover-up for the growing oxygen crisis. And whatever happened to the apocalyptic threat from carbon emissions? Well that, apparently, CO2 scaremongering isn't scaring us anyway near enough. So now the alarmists have come up with a new scam... oxygen deficiency - on a global scale. This weekend's latest fear-creating salvo was fired in aid of an upcoming book describing the alleged lack of oxygen which could... wait for it. ...yes, you've guessed it, could (note the requisite opt-out clause) obliterate life on earth. of course, that will only happen if the carbon dioxide emissions, the return of TB, AIDS, CJD, the millennium bug, Avian Flu et al don't get us first, of course. Well they could, couldn't they? Anyway, here is long-time leftie and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell with the fiction considered worth publishing by the apparently comotose editors at The Guardian : The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. [...] Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources. [...] Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. And here is Lord Christopher Monckton and a cast of ...some others... with the facts (shortly to be published at SPPI Scarewatch : The scare : As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers demolishing the imagined “consensus” that anthropogenic “global warming” will prove “catastrophic”, the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feeble-minded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by Peter Tatchell, a homosexual campaigner who once attempted to arrest the dictator of Zimbabwe, suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania . Tatchell says: “Little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. …Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. …This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth. …” The truth : Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O 2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O 2 with increasing CO 2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O 2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O 2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O 2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O 2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O 2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O 2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear-mongering.” Professor Roy Watts, of www.wattsupwiththat.com , adds: “This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a ‘oxygen crisis’, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear-mongering riding on the coat-tails of the ‘CO 2 crisis’. … I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear- mongering.” Dr. Lubos Motl, a physicist, has posted a detailed comment on the Tatchell article on his blog. He says: " The reality is, of course, that the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere has been 20.94 or 20.95 percent for thousands of years and probably much longer than that. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so huge that the biosphere (and fossil fuels which used to belong to the biosphere as well) is completely unable to change this amount significantly. "It may be useful to mention that the oxygen is only 1/5 of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is just 1/1,200,000 of the mass of the Earth. However, the Earth is very heavy, 6 x 10 24 kg, so the mass of the oxygen in the atmosphere is something like 10 18 kilograms – about 150,000 tons per capita. We could not burn that much oxygen even if everyone in the world were using a private jet on a daily basis." “There is a simpler way to see that man-made changes to the oxygen levels are trivial and we will look at it now. For a schoolboy who is not skipping his science classes at elementary school, it shouldn’t be difficult to see why we can’t significantly influence the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. How can he do it? Well, he must realize that virtually all processes related to life and human activity – breathing (by animals and plants) and burning ( combustion ) – exchange the atmospheric O 2 molecules for CO 2 molecules or vice versa. Sometimes one needs two O2 molecules and only produces one CO 2 molecule, but this subtlety won’t change our final result significantly. "Virtually all other compounds participating in the relevant chemical reactions are either liquids or solids, which is why they don’t influence the composition of the atmosphere and we can ignore them. When you realize what the words above mean, you will see that the man-made decrease of O 2 is controlled by the increase of carbon dioxide: they’re inseparably linked to one another. The human activity has increased the CO 2 concentration from 280 ppm two centuries ago to 385 ppm today (the schoolboy should have seen these elementary numbers during his ‘CO 2 crisis’ classes). Because many people don’t know what the acronym ppm (parts per million) really means, even if they like to use it, let me tell you that it is the same thing as 0.0001%. “So the carbon dioxide went from 0.028% to 0.038%: the difference is 0.01%, or one-ten-thousandth, of the volume of the atmosphere. Because O 2 and CO 2 molecules occupy the same volume at a given pressure and a given temperature (since pV = NkT ), the decrease of O 2 should be equal to the increase of CO 2 if the molecules were exchanged for one another: the oxygen should drop by 0.01% of the volume of the atmosphere. “As we have already mentioned, two oxygen molecules are replaced in typical "combustion" chemical reactions for one carbon dioxide molecule, so the oxygen drop might be 0.02% instead of 0.01%. However, in the long run, there exist other processes besides the combustion-like processes involving CO 2 that we have considered – for example, processes involving deep ocean sediments – and these processes tend to restore the oxygen levels (as well as the CO 2 levels) . “At any rate, you see that the oxygen level couldn’t have decreased by more than 0.01% or so, from 20.95% to 20.94%, which is pretty much exactly what was observed. We needed centuries or millenia to achieve this modest effect. It is very clear that even if we burned all forests, plants, animals, and fossil fuels in the world, we couldn't get the oxygen levels below 20% (and maybe not even 20.9%). “Does the tiny decrease of oxygen levels change some important things? It doesn’t. The most ‘spectacular’ change is that the wildfire risk decreases by something like 0.01%, too (and maybe slightly more), as the oxygen levels drop. Because wildfires are somewhat unpopular and their decrease would be good news, you won’t read about it. “At any rate, all these changes are negligible given the tiny change in O 2 levels. ”Tatchell writes: ‘I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern.’ Reasonable to whom? To me, worries about the ‘oxygen crisis’ seems to be a ticket for someone to be sent to a mental asylum. The point here is not whether Tatchell is a scientist: he's clearly not. The question is whether he is a dangerous enough weirdo to be isolated from society. “We can’t change the oxygen level in any significant way. Incidentally, while the overall amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is essentially constant, the amount of oxygen in various organisms varies dramatically. For example, the human body must keep the concentration of this harmful-if-too-abundant gas around 5% in most organs. This optimal percentage depends on the life forms, which is why the varying percentage of oxygen in amber – a point mentioned by Tatchell – says absolutely nothing about the overall O 2 volume. “Men have been able to change the overall carbon dioxide concentrations measurably because it is a trace gas: there was almost none to start with, so it is easy to change its volume by relatively large amounts, proportionally speaking. But oxygen is one of the gases that the Earth's atmosphere has been made out of for 0.5 or even 2.5 billion years. You can’t change that. …“Tatchell writes a lot of other incredible nonsense, for example that the oxygen in cities is much (by 15%) lower than it is in the countryside. He probably believes that the pressure drops from 1000 to 900 millibars in cities... ” Is there someone at The Guardian who has some common sense left? Could you please stop printing insane people like Peter Tatchell who help to transform your daily into an expensive and dirty piece of toilet paper?” Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University has written: “An oft-heard warning with regard to our planet’s future is that by cutting back tropical forests we put our supply of oxygen gas at risk. Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth’s O 2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O 2 . No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don’t have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O 2 supply. Furthermore, the Earth’s forests do not play a dominant role in maintaining O 2 reserves, because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O 2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. “While no danger exists that our O 2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O 2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining–so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn’t developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling , its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O 2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult. This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O 2 . For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O 2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling’s measurements showed that the rate of decline of O 2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global “greening” by geochemists. Although the details as to just how and where remain obscure, the buildup of extra CO 2 in our atmosphere and of extra fixed nitrogen in our soils probably allows plants to grow a bit faster than before, leading to a greater storage of carbon in tree wood and soil humus. For each atom of extra carbon stored in this way, roughly one molecule of extra oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.” Finally, here is what Dr. Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia, has to say about the graph of the decline in atmospheric O 2 at Cape Grim : “The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing. Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this.” End of scare.

Tags:

The excellent Phillip Stott raises a basic question that should concern all who demand truth from the mass media: why is the media bullishly promoting a 'current global warming" when all the science points to the fact there has been no global warming since at all 1998.  I have long said that it is not the science that is the problem rather it is the media itself which promotes a thoroughly false understaing of science, expecially on the issue of climate science. Phillip here calls it 'cognitive dissonance'. I call it 'too thick too grasp truth, too dishonest (being detrimental to audience ratings) to report it'. But it pretty much amounts to the same thing. But here it is in Phillip's words: I must ask a very serious and urgent question of our media. Whydo you continue to talk glibly about current climate ‘warming’ when itis now widely acknowledged that there has been no ‘global warming’ forthe last ten years, a cooling trend that many think may continue for atleast another ten years? How can you talk of the climate ‘warming’ when, on the key measures, it isn’t? And now a leading Mexican scientist is even predicting that we may enter another ‘Little Ice Age’ - a ‘pequeña era [edad] de hielo’. Suchmedia behaviour exhibits a classic condition known as ‘cognitivedissonance’. This is experienced when belief in a grand narrativepersists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin tocontradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, our media have come tohave a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have so many politiciansand activists. They are terrified that the public may begin to questioneverything if climate is acknowledged, on air and in the press, not tobe playing ball with their pet trope. For the full piece go to Global Warming Politics . Now Oxygen Crisis Threatens Us All, reports Guardian Having breathing problems. Forget obesity, that could just be a government cover-up for the growing crisis. And whatever happened to the apocalyptic threat from carbon emissions? Well that, apparently, CO2 scaremongering isn't scaring us anyway near enough. So now the alarmists have come up with a new scam... oxygen deficiency - on a global scale. This weekend's latest fear-creating salvo was fired in aid of an upcoming book describing the alleged lack of oxygen which could... wait for it. ...yes, you've guessed it, could (note the requisite opt-out clause) obliterate life on earth. of course, that will only happen if the carbon dioxide emissions, the return of TB, AIDS, CJD, the millennium bug, Avian Flu et al don't get us first, of course. Well they could, couldn't they? Anyway, here is long-time leftie and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell with the fiction considered worth publishing by the apparently comotose editors at The Guardian : The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. [...] Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources. [...] Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. And here is Lord Christopher Monckton and a cast of ...some others... with the facts (shortly to be published at SPPI Scarewatch : The scare : As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers demolishing the imagined “consensus” that anthropogenic “global warming” will prove “catastrophic”, the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feeble-minded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by Peter Tatchell, a homosexual campaigner who once attempted to arrest the dictator of Zimbabwe, suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania . Tatchell says: “Little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. …Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. …This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth. …” The truth : Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O 2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O 2 with increasing CO 2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O 2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O 2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O 2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O 2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O 2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O 2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear-mongering.” Professor Roy Watts, of www.wattsupwiththat.com , adds: “This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a ‘oxygen crisis’, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear-mongering riding on the coat-tails of the ‘CO 2 crisis’. … I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear- mongering.” Dr. Lubos Motl, a physicist, has posted a detailed comment on the Tatchell article on his blog. He says: " The reality is, of course, that the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere has been 20.94 or 20.95 percent for thousands of years and probably much longer than that. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so huge that the biosphere (and fossil fuels which used to belong to the biosphere as well) is completely unable to change this amount significantly. "It may be useful to mention that the oxygen is only 1/5 of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is just 1/1,200,000 of the mass of the Earth. However, the Earth is very heavy, 6 x 10 24 kg, so the mass of the oxygen in the atmosphere is something like 10 18 kilograms – about 150,000 tons per capita. We could not burn that much oxygen even if everyone in the world were using a private jet on a daily basis." “There is a simpler way to see that man-made changes to the oxygen levels are trivial and we will look at it now. For a schoolboy who is not skipping his science classes at elementary school, it shouldn’t be difficult to see why we can’t significantly influence the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. How can he do it? Well, he must realize that virtually all processes related to life and human activity – breathing (by animals and plants) and burning ( combustion ) – exchange the atmospheric O 2 molecules for CO 2 molecules or vice versa. Sometimes one needs two O2 molecules and only produces one CO 2 molecule, but this subtlety won’t change our final result significantly. "Virtually all other compounds participating in the relevant chemical reactions are either liquids or solids, which is why they don’t influence the composition of the atmosphere and we can ignore them. When you realize what the words above mean, you will see that the man-made decrease of O 2 is controlled by the increase of carbon dioxide: they’re inseparably linked to one another. The human activity has increased the CO 2 concentration from 280 ppm two centuries ago to 385 ppm today (the schoolboy should have seen these elementary numbers during his ‘CO 2 crisis’ classes). Because many people don’t know what the acronym ppm (parts per million) really means, even if they like to use it, let me tell you that it is the same thing as 0.0001%. “So the carbon dioxide went from 0.028% to 0.038%: the difference is 0.01%, or one-ten-thousandth, of the volume of the atmosphere. Because O 2 and CO 2 molecules occupy the same volume at a given pressure and a given temperature (since pV = NkT ), the decrease of O 2 should be equal to the increase of CO 2 if the molecules were exchanged for one another: the oxygen should drop by 0.01% of the volume of the atmosphere. “As we have already mentioned, two oxygen molecules are replaced in typical "combustion" chemical reactions for one carbon dioxide molecule, so the oxygen drop might be 0.02% instead of 0.01%. However, in the long run, there exist other processes besides the combustion-like processes involving CO 2 that we have considered – for example, processes involving deep ocean sediments – and these processes tend to restore the oxygen levels (as well as the CO 2 levels) . “At any rate, you see that the oxygen level couldn’t have decreased by more than 0.01% or so, from 20.95% to 20.94%, which is pretty much exactly what was observed. We needed centuries or millenia to achieve this modest effect. It is very clear that even if we burned all forests, plants, animals, and fossil fuels in the world, we couldn't get the oxygen levels below 20% (and maybe not even 20.9%). “Does the tiny decrease of oxygen levels change some important things? It doesn’t. The most ‘spectacular’ change is that the wildfire risk decreases by something like 0.01%, too (and maybe slightly more), as the oxygen levels drop. Because wildfires are somewhat unpopular and their decrease would be good news, you won’t read about it. “At any rate, all these changes are negligible given the tiny change in O 2 levels. ”Tatchell writes: ‘I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern.’ Reasonable to whom? To me, worries about the ‘oxygen crisis’ seems to be a ticket for someone to be sent to a mental asylum. The point here is not whether Tatchell is a scientist: he's clearly not. The question is whether he is a dangerous enough weirdo to be isolated from society. “We can’t change the oxygen level in any significant way. Incidentally, while the overall amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is essentially constant, the amount of oxygen in various organisms varies dramatically. For example, the human body must keep the concentration of this harmful-if-too-abundant gas around 5% in most organs. This optimal percentage depends on the life forms, which is why the varying percentage of oxygen in amber – a point mentioned by Tatchell – says absolutely nothing about the overall O 2 volume. “Men have been able to change the overall carbon dioxide concentrations measurably because it is a trace gas: there was almost none to start with, so it is easy to change its volume by relatively large amounts, proportionally speaking. But oxygen is one of the gases that the Earth's atmosphere has been made out of for 0.5 or even 2.5 billion years. You can’t change that. …“Tatchell writes a lot of other incredible nonsense, for example that the oxygen in cities is much (by 15%) lower than it is in the countryside. He probably believes that the pressure drops from 1000 to 900 millibars in cities... ” Is there someone at The Guardian who has some common sense left? Could you please stop printing insane people like Peter Tatchell who help to transform your daily into an expensive and dirty piece of toilet paper?” Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University has written: “An oft-heard warning with regard to our planet’s future is that by cutting back tropical forests we put our supply of oxygen gas at risk. Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth’s O 2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O 2 . No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don’t have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O 2 supply. Furthermore, the Earth’s forests do not play a dominant role in maintaining O 2 reserves, because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O 2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. “While no danger exists that our O 2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O 2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining–so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn’t developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling , its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O 2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult. This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O 2 . For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O 2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling’s measurements showed that the rate of decline of O 2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global “greening” by geochemists. Although the details as to just how and where remain obscure, the buildup of extra CO 2 in our atmosphere and of extra fixed nitrogen in our soils probably allows plants to grow a bit faster than before, leading to a greater storage of carbon in tree wood and soil humus. For each atom of extra carbon stored in this way, roughly one molecule of extra oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.” Finally, here is what Dr. Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia, has to say about the graph of the decline in atmospheric O 2 at Cape Grim : “The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing. Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this.” End of scare.

Tags:

The excellent Phillip Stott raises a basic question that should concern all who demand truth from the mass media: why is the media bullishly promoting a 'current global warming" when all the science points to the fact there has been no global warming since at all 1998.  I have long said that it is not the science that is the problem rather it is the media itself which promotes a thoroughly false understaing of science, expecially on the issue of climate science. Phillip here calls it 'cognitive dissonance'. I call it 'too thick too grasp truth, too dishonest (being detrimental to audience ratings) to report it'. But it pretty much amounts to the same thing. But here it is in Phillip's words: I must ask a very serious and urgent question of our media. Whydo you continue to talk glibly about current climate ‘warming’ when itis now widely acknowledged that there has been no ‘global warming’ forthe last ten years, a cooling trend that many think may continue for atleast another ten years? How can you talk of the climate ‘warming’ when, on the key measures, it isn’t? And now a leading Mexican scientist is even predicting that we may enter another ‘Little Ice Age’ - a ‘pequeña era [edad] de hielo’. Suchmedia behaviour exhibits a classic condition known as ‘cognitivedissonance’. This is experienced when belief in a grand narrativepersists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin tocontradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, our media have come tohave a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have so many politiciansand activists. They are terrified that the public may begin to questioneverything if climate is acknowledged, on air and in the press, not tobe playing ball with their pet trope. For the full piece go to Global Warming Politics . Now Oxygen Crisis Threatens Us All, reports Guardian Having breathing problems. Forget obesity, that could just be a government cover-up for the growing oxygen crisis. And whatever happened to the apocalyptic threat from carbon emissions? Well that, apparently, CO2 scaremongering isn't scaring us anyway near enough. So now the alarmists have come up with a new scam... oxygen deficiency - on a global scale. This weekend's latest fear-creating salvo was fired in aid of an upcoming book describing the alleged lack of oxygen which could... wait for it. ...yes, you've guessed it, could (note the requisite opt-out clause) obliterate life on earth. of course, that will only happen if the carbon dioxide emissions, the return of TB, AIDS, CJD, the millennium bug, Avian Flu et al don't get us first, of course. Well they could, couldn't they? Anyway, here is long-time leftie and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell with the fiction considered worth publishing by the apparently comotose editors at The Guardian : The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. [...] Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources. [...] Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. And here is Lord Christopher Monckton and a cast of ...some others... with the facts (shortly to be published at SPPI Scarewatch : The scare : As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers demolishing the imagined “consensus” that anthropogenic “global warming” will prove “catastrophic”, the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feeble-minded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by Peter Tatchell, a homosexual campaigner who once attempted to arrest the dictator of Zimbabwe, suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania . Tatchell says: “Little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. …Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. …This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth. …” The truth : Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O 2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O 2 with increasing CO 2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O 2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O 2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O 2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O 2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O 2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O 2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear-mongering.” Professor Roy Watts, of www.wattsupwiththat.com , adds: “This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a ‘oxygen crisis’, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear-mongering riding on the coat-tails of the ‘CO 2 crisis’. … I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear- mongering.” Dr. Lubos Motl, a physicist, has posted a detailed comment on the Tatchell article on his blog. He says: " The reality is, of course, that the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere has been 20.94 or 20.95 percent for thousands of years and probably much longer than that. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so huge that the biosphere (and fossil fuels which used to belong to the biosphere as well) is completely unable to change this amount significantly. "It may be useful to mention that the oxygen is only 1/5 of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is just 1/1,200,000 of the mass of the Earth. However, the Earth is very heavy, 6 x 10 24 kg, so the mass of the oxygen in the atmosphere is something like 10 18 kilograms – about 150,000 tons per capita. We could not burn that much oxygen even if everyone in the world were using a private jet on a daily basis." “There is a simpler way to see that man-made changes to the oxygen levels are trivial and we will look at it now. For a schoolboy who is not skipping his science classes at elementary school, it shouldn’t be difficult to see why we can’t significantly influence the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. How can he do it? Well, he must realize that virtually all processes related to life and human activity – breathing (by animals and plants) and burning ( combustion ) – exchange the atmospheric O 2 molecules for CO 2 molecules or vice versa. Sometimes one needs two O2 molecules and only produces one CO 2 molecule, but this subtlety won’t change our final result significantly. "Virtually all other compounds participating in the relevant chemical reactions are either liquids or solids, which is why they don’t influence the composition of the atmosphere and we can ignore them. When you realize what the words above mean, you will see that the man-made decrease of O 2 is controlled by the increase of carbon dioxide: they’re inseparably linked to one another. The human activity has increased the CO 2 concentration from 280 ppm two centuries ago to 385 ppm today (the schoolboy should have seen these elementary numbers during his ‘CO 2 crisis’ classes). Because many people don’t know what the acronym ppm (parts per million) really means, even if they like to use it, let me tell you that it is the same thing as 0.0001%. “So the carbon dioxide went from 0.028% to 0.038%: the difference is 0.01%, or one-ten-thousandth, of the volume of the atmosphere. Because O 2 and CO 2 molecules occupy the same volume at a given pressure and a given temperature (since pV = NkT ), the decrease of O 2 should be equal to the increase of CO 2 if the molecules were exchanged for one another: the oxygen should drop by 0.01% of the volume of the atmosphere. “As we have already mentioned, two oxygen molecules are replaced in typical "combustion" chemical reactions for one carbon dioxide molecule, so the oxygen drop might be 0.02% instead of 0.01%. However, in the long run, there exist other processes besides the combustion-like processes involving CO 2 that we have considered – for example, processes involving deep ocean sediments – and these processes tend to restore the oxygen levels (as well as the CO 2 levels) . “At any rate, you see that the oxygen level couldn’t have decreased by more than 0.01% or so, from 20.95% to 20.94%, which is pretty much exactly what was observed. We needed centuries or millenia to achieve this modest effect. It is very clear that even if we burned all forests, plants, animals, and fossil fuels in the world, we couldn't get the oxygen levels below 20% (and maybe not even 20.9%). “Does the tiny decrease of oxygen levels change some important things? It doesn’t. The most ‘spectacular’ change is that the wildfire risk decreases by something like 0.01%, too (and maybe slightly more), as the oxygen levels drop. Because wildfires are somewhat unpopular and their decrease would be good news, you won’t read about it. “At any rate, all these changes are negligible given the tiny change in O 2 levels. ”Tatchell writes: ‘I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern.’ Reasonable to whom? To me, worries about the ‘oxygen crisis’ seems to be a ticket for someone to be sent to a mental asylum. The point here is not whether Tatchell is a scientist: he's clearly not. The question is whether he is a dangerous enough weirdo to be isolated from society. “We can’t change the oxygen level in any significant way. Incidentally, while the overall amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is essentially constant, the amount of oxygen in various organisms varies dramatically. For example, the human body must keep the concentration of this harmful-if-too-abundant gas around 5% in most organs. This optimal percentage depends on the life forms, which is why the varying percentage of oxygen in amber – a point mentioned by Tatchell – says absolutely nothing about the overall O 2 volume. “Men have been able to change the overall carbon dioxide concentrations measurably because it is a trace gas: there was almost none to start with, so it is easy to change its volume by relatively large amounts, proportionally speaking. But oxygen is one of the gases that the Earth's atmosphere has been made out of for 0.5 or even 2.5 billion years. You can’t change that. …“Tatchell writes a lot of other incredible nonsense, for example that the oxygen in cities is much (by 15%) lower than it is in the countryside. He probably believes that the pressure drops from 1000 to 900 millibars in cities... ” Is there someone at The Guardian who has some common sense left? Could you please stop printing insane people like Peter Tatchell who help to transform your daily into an expensive and dirty piece of toilet paper?” Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University has written: “An oft-heard warning with regard to our planet’s future is that by cutting back tropical forests we put our supply of oxygen gas at risk. Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth’s O 2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O 2 . No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don’t have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O 2 supply. Furthermore, the Earth’s forests do not play a dominant role in maintaining O 2 reserves, because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O 2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. “While no danger exists that our O 2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O 2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining–so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn’t developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling , its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O 2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult. This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O 2 . For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O 2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling’s measurements showed that the rate of decline of O 2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global “greening” by geochemists. Although the details as to just how and where remain obscure, the buildup of extra CO 2 in our atmosphere and of extra fixed nitrogen in our soils probably allows plants to grow a bit faster than before, leading to a greater storage of carbon in tree wood and soil humus. For each atom of extra carbon stored in this way, roughly one molecule of extra oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.” Finally, here is what Dr. Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia, has to say about the graph of the decline in atmospheric O 2 at Cape Grim : “The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing. Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this.” End of scare.

Tags:

The excellent Phillip Stott raises a basic question that should concern all who demand truth from the mass media: why is the media bullishly promoting a 'current global warming" when all the science points to the fact there has been no global warming since at all 1998.  I have long said that it is not the science that is the problem rather it is the media itself which promotes a thoroughly false understaing of science, expecially on the issue of climate science. Phillip here calls it 'cognitive dissonance'. I call it 'too thick too grasp truth, too dishonest (being detrimental to audience ratings) to report it'. But it pretty much amounts to the same thing. But here it is in Phillip's words: I must ask a very serious and urgent question of our media. Whydo you continue to talk glibly about current climate ‘warming’ when itis now widely acknowledged that there has been no ‘global warming’ forthe last ten years, a cooling trend that many think may continue for atleast another ten years? How can you talk of the climate ‘warming’ when, on the key measures, it isn’t? And now a leading Mexican scientist is even predicting that we may enter another ‘Little Ice Age’ - a ‘pequeña era [edad] de hielo’. Suchmedia behaviour exhibits a classic condition known as ‘cognitivedissonance’. This is experienced when belief in a grand narrativepersists blindly even when the facts in the real world begin tocontradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, our media have come tohave a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have so many politiciansand activists. They are terrified that the public may begin to questioneverything if climate is acknowledged, on air and in the press, not tobe playing ball with their pet trope. For the full piece go to Global Warming Politics . Now Oxygen Crisis Threatens Us All, reports Guardian Having breathing problems. Forget obesity, that could just be a government cover-up for the growing oxygen crisis. And whatever happened to the apocalyptic threat from carbon emissions? Well that, apparently, CO2 scaremongering isn't scaring us anyway near enough. So now the alarmists have come up with a new scam... oxygen deficiency - on a global scale. This weekend's latest fear-creating salvo was fired in aid of an upcoming book describing the alleged lack of oxygen which could... wait for it. ...yes, you've guessed it, could (note the requisite opt-out clause) obliterate life on earth. of course, that will only happen if the carbon dioxide emissions, the return of TB, AIDS, CJD, the millennium bug, Avian Flu et al don't get us first, of course. Well they could, couldn't they? Anyway, here is long-time leftie and gay rights activist Peter Tatchell with the fiction considered worth publishing by the apparently comotose editors at The Guardian : The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis. [...] Desertification and deforestation are rapidly accelerating this long-term loss of oxygen sources. [...] Professor Robert Berner of Yale University has researched oxygen levels in prehistoric times by chemically analysing air bubbles trapped in fossilised tree amber. He suggests that humans breathed a much more oxygen-rich air 10,000 years ago. And here is Lord Christopher Monckton and a cast of ...some others... with the facts (shortly to be published at SPPI Scarewatch : The scare : As the peer-reviewed literature is filled with a growing proportion of learned papers demolishing the imagined “consensus” that anthropogenic “global warming” will prove “catastrophic”, the less serious newspapers are looking for new scares to peddle to the feeble-minded. In mid-August 2008, The Guardian, Britain’s silliest newspaper, printed an article by Peter Tatchell, a homosexual campaigner who once attempted to arrest the dictator of Zimbabwe, suggesting that the world’s oxygen is running out because of humankind’s use of fossil fuels. Atmospheric oxygen trend from Cape Grim, Tasmania . Tatchell says: “Little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects. Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. …Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels. …This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth. …” The truth : Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, says: “The O 2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration, at 20.95%, has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O 2 with increasing CO 2 has been actually measured. But I believe the O 2 concentration is still close to 20.95%. There is so much O 2 in the atmosphere, it is believed not to be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments. No one really knows for sure. Since too much O 2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O 2 concentrations down to around 5% in our major organs. Extra O 2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you (or kill you) if the exposure is too long. It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O 2 concentrations were much more than they are now. To say that there is an impending ‘oxygen crisis’ on Earth is the epitome of fear-mongering.” Professor Roy Watts, of www.wattsupwiththat.com , adds: “This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a ‘oxygen crisis’, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear-mongering riding on the coat-tails of the ‘CO 2 crisis’. … I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear- mongering.” Dr. Lubos Motl, a physicist, has posted a detailed comment on the Tatchell article on his blog. He says: " The reality is, of course, that the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere has been 20.94 or 20.95 percent for thousands of years and probably much longer than that. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is so huge that the biosphere (and fossil fuels which used to belong to the biosphere as well) is completely unable to change this amount significantly. "It may be useful to mention that the oxygen is only 1/5 of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is just 1/1,200,000 of the mass of the Earth. However, the Earth is very heavy, 6 x 10 24 kg, so the mass of the oxygen in the atmosphere is something like 10 18 kilograms – about 150,000 tons per capita. We could not burn that much oxygen even if everyone in the world were using a private jet on a daily basis." “There is a simpler way to see that man-made changes to the oxygen levels are trivial and we will look at it now. For a schoolboy who is not skipping his science classes at elementary school, it shouldn’t be difficult to see why we can’t significantly influence the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. How can he do it? Well, he must realize that virtually all processes related to life and human activity – breathing (by animals and plants) and burning ( combustion ) – exchange the atmospheric O 2 molecules for CO 2 molecules or vice versa. Sometimes one needs two O2 molecules and only produces one CO 2 molecule, but this subtlety won’t change our final result significantly. "Virtually all other compounds participating in the relevant chemical reactions are either liquids or solids, which is why they don’t influence the composition of the atmosphere and we can ignore them. When you realize what the words above mean, you will see that the man-made decrease of O 2 is controlled by the increase of carbon dioxide: they’re inseparably linked to one another. The human activity has increased the CO 2 concentration from 280 ppm two centuries ago to 385 ppm today (the schoolboy should have seen these elementary numbers during his ‘CO 2 crisis’ classes). Because many people don’t know what the acronym ppm (parts per million) really means, even if they like to use it, let me tell you that it is the same thing as 0.0001%. “So the carbon dioxide went from 0.028% to 0.038%: the difference is 0.01%, or one-ten-thousandth, of the volume of the atmosphere. Because O 2 and CO 2 molecules occupy the same volume at a given pressure and a given temperature (since pV = NkT ), the decrease of O 2 should be equal to the increase of CO 2 if the molecules were exchanged for one another: the oxygen should drop by 0.01% of the volume of the atmosphere. “As we have already mentioned, two oxygen molecules are replaced in typical "combustion" chemical reactions for one carbon dioxide molecule, so the oxygen drop might be 0.02% instead of 0.01%. However, in the long run, there exist other processes besides the combustion-like processes involving CO 2 that we have considered – for example, processes involving deep ocean sediments – and these processes tend to restore the oxygen levels (as well as the CO 2 levels) . “At any rate, you see that the oxygen level couldn’t have decreased by more than 0.01% or so, from 20.95% to 20.94%, which is pretty much exactly what was observed. We needed centuries or millenia to achieve this modest effect. It is very clear that even if we burned all forests, plants, animals, and fossil fuels in the world, we couldn't get the oxygen levels below 20% (and maybe not even 20.9%). “Does the tiny decrease of oxygen levels change some important things? It doesn’t. The most ‘spectacular’ change is that the wildfire risk decreases by something like 0.01%, too (and maybe slightly more), as the oxygen levels drop. Because wildfires are somewhat unpopular and their decrease would be good news, you won’t read about it. “At any rate, all these changes are negligible given the tiny change in O 2 levels. ”Tatchell writes: ‘I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern.’ Reasonable to whom? To me, worries about the ‘oxygen crisis’ seems to be a ticket for someone to be sent to a mental asylum. The point here is not whether Tatchell is a scientist: he's clearly not. The question is whether he is a dangerous enough weirdo to be isolated from society. “We can’t change the oxygen level in any significant way. Incidentally, while the overall amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is essentially constant, the amount of oxygen in various organisms varies dramatically. For example, the human body must keep the concentration of this harmful-if-too-abundant gas around 5% in most organs. This optimal percentage depends on the life forms, which is why the varying percentage of oxygen in amber – a point mentioned by Tatchell – says absolutely nothing about the overall O 2 volume. “Men have been able to change the overall carbon dioxide concentrations measurably because it is a trace gas: there was almost none to start with, so it is easy to change its volume by relatively large amounts, proportionally speaking. But oxygen is one of the gases that the Earth's atmosphere has been made out of for 0.5 or even 2.5 billion years. You can’t change that. …“Tatchell writes a lot of other incredible nonsense, for example that the oxygen in cities is much (by 15%) lower than it is in the countryside. He probably believes that the pressure drops from 1000 to 900 millibars in cities... ” Is there someone at The Guardian who has some common sense left? Could you please stop printing insane people like Peter Tatchell who help to transform your daily into an expensive and dirty piece of toilet paper?” Professor Wallace Broecker of Columbia University has written: “An oft-heard warning with regard to our planet’s future is that by cutting back tropical forests we put our supply of oxygen gas at risk. Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth’s O 2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O 2 . No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don’t have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O 2 supply. Furthermore, the Earth’s forests do not play a dominant role in maintaining O 2 reserves, because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O 2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor. “While no danger exists that our O 2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O 2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining–so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn’t developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling , its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O 2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult. This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O 2 . For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O 2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling’s measurements showed that the rate of decline of O 2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global “greening” by geochemists. Although the details as to just how and where remain obscure, the buildup of extra CO 2 in our atmosphere and of extra fixed nitrogen in our soils probably allows plants to grow a bit faster than before, leading to a greater storage of carbon in tree wood and soil humus. For each atom of extra carbon stored in this way, roughly one molecule of extra oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.” Finally, here is what Dr. Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research, Australia, has to say about the graph of the decline in atmospheric O 2 at Cape Grim : “The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air - 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing. Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this.” End of scare.

Tags: