Those who have anti-science views, know the least but think they know the most

yeah I will walk it back and add for the less astute the words :
"Typically Humans require a minimum of 19.7% atmospheric concentration of Oxygen to survive with out symptoms of hypoxia. (Regardless of altitude)"

My bad ... sorry about that... I gotta keep in mind the audience always...thanks for reminding me...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2780/nasa-finds-amazon-drought-leaves-long-legacy-of-damage/
https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/from-sink-to-source-droughts-are-changing-the-amazon-rainforest/
https://www.water.ox.ac.uk/drought-amazon-persist-years-later/

and there is plenty more where those came from...

Google Amazon drought...22.3 million hits
Go look for yourself.
Consider both land clearing and drought happening together...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not ignoring anything...
If you have a specific question about my posts ask it but only one at a time ok....then maybe just maybe a discussion can actually take place..

 

That both climate change/crisis and forest clearing are responsible for the current fires burning out of control in the Amazon...
The Amazon has suffered extreme droughts 2005, 2010, 2015 which has meant that the current drought has left the Amazon dry and easy to burn. Normally the Amazon is not so easy to burn.
So the climate change/crisis has amplified any deforestation efforts by the farmers who are capitalizing on a ready to burn Amazon.
The current media frenzy is focused only on the farmers and not the dry conditions created by the Climate crisis.
One can only speculate as to why that is the case....
Perhaps it is better to blame the farmers than climate change after all we can't do anything about the current climate change extremes, but we might be able to educate the farmers better.
Also the fear associated with losing the Amazon as the "lungs of the planet" may be too much to handle. Best not say anything....

nope... human nature is what it is, but it is human science that has enabled it. (obviously)
Unwise science, with a lack of vision, too much focus on immediate need (greed) rather than long term sustainability etc...
No interest in environmental sustainability has consequences. A classic example of foolishness is the Adani mine project you have mentioned.
All adds up to a possible extinction event.

As far as your comments about hypoxia being acclimatized, you fail to understand that it is impossible to acclimatize if the atmospheric concentration of oxygen to other gases is less than 19.7 % .
I'll try to explain:
It is impossible because it is that minimum percentage of 19.7% that you need to acclimatize at altitude. If high altitude Oxygen levels are less than 19.7% then hypoxia can not be avoided as acclimatization is impossible. Acclimatizing to less than 19.7% is a state of hypoxia leading to hypoxemia.

Deep sea diving, as I understand it, is the inverse, as the deeper you go the higher the oxygen saturation in your tanks is until eventually the saturation becomes toxic. Hence in part why they use less % oxygen and replace nitrogen with helium when setting up for extreme depths.

The reason why acclimatization is needed in the first place is not the % of oxygen as this remains the same whether at sea level or at altitude. It is the low saturation of oxygen ( thin air) that has to be adapted to.

The myth that we can survive with out Hypoxia in a < 19.7% oxygen atmosphere is just that a myth born of ignorance and misunderstanding.

Thin air, still has to have the oxygen mix that includes 19.7 % oxygen other wise the saturation of oxygen (ppm) is insufficient to avoid hypoxia.
The 150 million High altitude acclimatized people you refer to will suffer hypoxia once the % drops below 19.7 just the same as those at sea level.

Perhaps starting another thread on just this subject may be in order if you are still confused. It is obviously an important point that many seem to fail to get.

If we loose the Amazon , Siberia and now I hear Africa is also burning the % oxygen will inevitably drop from where it is now from about 20.9% globally at all altitudes. ( with extreme altitudes being an exception. ie Stratospheric Oxygen %)

At least President Macron of France has a good grasp of it...and with a bit of luck the other leaders might get the gist as well...

This is being caused in the main by science enabled climate crisis.
and it is going to take science to enable a recovery if at all possible, because human nature as it is will not adapt fast enough. By the time the majority of citizens of this planet actually realize the gravity of their predicament and start making the lifestyle sacrifices necessary, it will be all over bar the shouting...

As to living a minimalist life style, I have been doing that for about 13 years, no car , no planes, not even public transport - walk every where, minimal electricity/gas, recycling everything possible. ( no money to buy solar, renting )

What about you, what have you been sacrificing for the planet?

 

Hi QQ - I’m just returning to this thread and see it’s off on a tangent lol What do you mean by “science enabled climate crisis?”

It would seem that you’re subtly implying that scientists are “in on it?”

 

In some cases their negligence make them culpable sure...
take this beautiful beast as a simple example:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

generic steam train image - off the web.

It may be true that due to the Dunning-Kruger effect the scientists and engineers who experimented, built and assessed coal fired steam engines didn't see what future they were engineering. But certainly their tremendous ingenuity went on to play a significant role in possibly our most significant artificial disaster. aka Climate crisis.

I am sure they were not concerned about where their science was taking us all. Money, greed, influence, progress being more important than what may happen merely a couple of centuries later.

Maybe the scientist paused for a bit when working on his pressure vessel and thought fleetingly that that smoke, what ever it consisted of ( they didn't know in those days), was going somewhere but hey that's someone else's problem isn't it.

Probably thought ignorance was bliss ...the Co2 produced from the science enabled iron works that made the engine itself would have been enormous.
So inadvertently(**) the scientist's science has enabled climate change because with out the science there would be no AGW.
Ask any clever indigenous person that has co-existed with nature for 40,000 years or so with out it, and they will tell you.
A classic case of the Dunning -Kruger effect.
Arrogance has no intellectual boundaries.

(**)Assuming no one would wish a human extinction event it must be deemed inadvertent or maybe I am being too generous?

Regardless of the issue of culpability, unwise human science did indeed enable climate change.

Ironically if the human race becomes extinct because of science then one could claim that science itself is the most anti science group there is. Because after extinction where for art thou science?

 

This seems quite a burden to put on people who are simply trying to feed their families and put a roof over their heads - no greed or power necessary.
We can't all be visionaries and rebels - the world would grid to a halt.

I think you are assuming the conceit of historical hindsight, and assuming that people living a century ago should have been more concerned about lives a hundred years hence, than their own.

 

Nope. Again, it's all about partial pressures of oxygen. For example, when working on subway construction (often done using overpressure) 10% might be just fine. Above 50,000 feet even 100% oxygen isn't enough.

So let's fix your statement:

Normal humans require about .15 bar ppO2 to avoid symptoms of hypoxia. If you go below that you will get hypoxic. If you go below about .5 bar you could die. And that IS valid at any altitude.

A much easier way to answer that question - for every 1% drop in O2, what is it equivalent to in terms of altitude gain? It's about 1500 feet. So want to see what losing 1.5% of O2 at sea level looks like? Drive from LA to Las Vegas. That will give you a ppO2 equivalent of 18.5% at sea level.

How many people in Las Vegas have you heard about dying from hypoxia?

 

Nope. You are a good example of Dunning-Krueger; someone whose lack of knowledge makes them feel especially intelligent and qualified to comment on issues they don't understand. People like James Watts knew they didn't understand what was going on, so they researched, built prototypes, tested them, compared them to theory (and often then fixed the theory) and then moved on. Saying James Watts experienced Dunning-Krueger is like claiming that Stephen Hawking had D-K because he didn't anticipate primordial black holes being used as weapons.

They were quite concerned. Watts, for example, dramatically improved the efficiency of steam engines, and allowed them to become practical freight and people movers - thus allowing harvests from farther away to make it to cities, people to move to where the work was and goods to be sold countrywide instead of in the town in which they were made.

Just as you today use your computer to complain about technology. You think "hey, all that energy to run and make the computer comes from somewhere but hey that's someone else's problem isn't it! As long as I get to bitch about things I have no intention of solving, I really don't give a sh!t."

Really? They would tell you they don't want clothing, or antibiotics, or reliable heat in the winter? How many of them have you met?

Amen to that. You're a great example.

 

Ok...
So answer the following just to be clear. I may indeed be mistaken...and you would be doing me a big favor...
(please note i am not talking about " Effective Oxygen levels" as I believe you are.)
What is the oxygen % relative to other gases at:
Sea level. 20.9%
1000 ft
10000 ft
300000 ft.
Then Stratosphere.
What do the words "uniform dispersal" of atmospheric gases, mean to you?

Think " mix" not ppO2..

 

I am sorry that you interpret it that way.
Human nature is what it is.... I accept that.
Can you?

 

Actually they are wrong.
Let me explain:
Even if we assume that the 6% Oxygen contributed by the Amazon is correct and forget about the 20 % bandied about by the media etc....
If we loose only the Amazon and ignore Siberia and all the other wild fires going on around the world. Let's focus only on that conservative 6% mentioned by Michael Mann and Jonathan Foley in that Guardian link you provided.

At all times the atmosphere's O2 content has to be replenished as Oxygen is consumed by wild fires, commercial jets, humans, animals, etc... and let us assume that with the Amazon intact we have a state of pseudo equilibrium. That is to say that oxygen used is replaced by oxygen generated. Most of it is replaced by Phytoplankton ( approx 70%)
Now you may not be aware of this but the atmospheric Oxygen mix % has been lessening for millions for years, albeit very slowly but certainly not increasing. Google oxygen depletion

So what happens when you remove 6 % of your Oxygen generating capacity in a closed system like our atmosphere?
If you had any accounting skills you would know where this is leading.

You end up with an ongoing deficit of 6% which further accelerates the decline in oxygen levels that has already been occurring for millions of years.
Now this is just with the loss of the Amazon.
Include the loss of Siberia.
According to some sources, NASA included, the rain forests and Boreal ( Tiaga) forest, estimated total contribution to the oxygen generation on this planet at approximately 25%- 30%.
With both the Amazon and Siberia decimated by fire the total deficit would be around 15%(?). This ongoing deficit means that the mix of gases in the atmosphere can rather rapidly deteriorate to the point where the oxygen component becomes less than the threshold of 19.7% and hypoxia becomes present regardless of altitude. Most likely Nitrogen will dominate and replace the missing oxygen with an relatively minor CO2 component. With less oxygen, Nitrogen becomes deadly.

So you have at least two major issues, Hypoxia and Nitrogen Asphyxia ( currently being used in the USA for capital punishment in some states.)

The only way we could avoid this is to reduce our oxygen consumption to offset the loss. Given the fact that many forests are tinder dry, wild fires, which burn a lot of oxygen needed for combustion, will continue to occur so reduction in oxygen consumption will not be really possible and every time a forest burns or is deforested we lose more oxygen generating capacity.

So in answer to your question:
"Do you seriously believe that the fires are going to reduce how much oxygen we have to breathe and risk hypoxia?"
There is no doubt, that if an oxygen deficit is generated by the loss of any oxygen generation capacity, hypoxia will inevitably be the eventual outcome. It is not an If, it is only a When.
So yes I believe it is a very serious possibility.
Even the loss of 6% oxygen generating capacity is a massive problem in a closed system.
If we lose the Amazon we are all in deep trouble...add in the loss of Siberia and it gets even deeper...
We desperately need to plant billions of trees immediately to even come close to off setting any future deficit.
The fires in the Amazon are being considered an International Emergency for a reason.

A really good article ( excluding Amazon and Siberia issue) that may be worth a read although a bit technical ( at least it is public) :

O2 is the most crucial atmospheric component for lives on earth, which is maintained not only by the process of photosynthesis by green plants and algae but also the processes that consume O2, such as respiration, combustion and decomposition [1]. Observations [2] have revealed that with the rapid development of industrialization and modern civilization, the concentration of atmospheric O2 has been declining over the past 30 years. Simultaneously, the O2 levels in oceans have also been decreasing due to the change of solubility under the back ground of global warming [3], and more dead zones have appeared [4].

Comparing to the rapid increase of CO2 concentration and its climate impacts, the decline of atmospheric O2 is far beyond the focus of research community and policy makers due to its negligible changes compared to its massive inventory in the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact, the decline in atmospheric O2 should be much more addressed [5] since it could affect the survival of humans and most of the species directly. Here, based on observations [6] and Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations [7], this study diagnoses the global O2 budget systematically to provide a clear understanding of O2 decline.​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209592731830375X

 

This is a content-free argument. I can say exactly the same thing and mean the exact opposite.

Human nature is what it is.... I accept that.
Can you?


(Human nature having been previously defined as 'people who are simply trying to feed their families and put a roof over their heads - no greed or power necessary'.)

 

1000 ft: 20.9%
10000 ft: 20.9%
300000ft: 20.9%
1000000ft: 15%

 

Where do you think oxygen comes from in our atmosphere?

 

Apparently they do not know where Oxygen or CO2 come from. Willful ignorance?