How to save earth from hot earth theory and I don’t mean stop global warming.

[billvon]

However as a auto technician years ago ( they called us guys motor mechanics in those days) the ratio of O2 to fuel was closer to 4:1 and certainly not 1:1

Right. Air/fuel is generally close to 14:1 (by weight) although that is creeping higher in the interests of fuel economy. That's actually about 3:1 by weight of oxygen. The remainder is nitrogen, which is important for power production and combustion but does not participate in combustion. (Ideally at least; some NOx is formed invariably due to the high temperatures in the cylinder.)

so... it is relatively easy to extend and suggest that for every CO2 unit produced ( in the mix of gasses produced) a significant amount of O2 must be consumed. ( potentially at a rate of 4:1) Even so, on face value, that means that a relatively trivial amount of O2 has been consumed in the production of our current atmospheric CO2.

Agreed there. In addition, I would also add that for every pound of oxygen you use for combustion you get 1.4 pounds of CO2.

This does not account for the CO2 that is being taken up by oceans and increased CO2 fertilization effects.
One can assume that any increase fertilization effects become net gain zero as the flora involved have to sustain their own existence with the O2 and CO2 they produce.
There fore it can be assumed that the Anthro CO2 production is significantly greater than that which is retained in the atmosphere.
Quantifying that CO2 produced and absorbed is not easy, ocean acidification ( accounts for 30-40% of anthro production), dead zones ( 405 at last count - 2008)

Summary:
Anthro CO2 production is significantly higher than the .04% indicated in the atmosphere. Which means that O2 consumption is considerably higher than that which is indicated by only atmospheric data.

Agreed. By the same measure, though, we have much larger O2 reserves that would be suggested by the air, since a lot of O2 is dissolved in the ocean.

It is worth noting that the confusion between "effective O2 " and actual O2 is often demonstrated in many supposedly erudite reports when dealing with this issue indicating a degree of incompetence or deliberate obfuscation.
Switching "category" or context to reduce alarm is one possibility.

"Effective" O2 is not a scientific term. Partial pressure is. So if you see someone using the term "effective O2" it's probably a science writer trying (and perhaps failing) to make the topic more understandable to laypeople.

Also prior to the Scrips O2 program being established scientific reports from well regarded high altitude research stations ( French and Swiss) of ambient O2 being as low as 19.7% were published on the net and then rapidly removed from the web at the time indicating some sort of intervention ( or cover up) Perhaps they found their reports mistaken and removed them to prevent embarrassment. I shall never know.

Or it was an internal measurement. With very high standards for insulation of new buildings, often air exchange is reduced. 19.7% would be somewhat unusual (because it would suggest an increase in CO2 to something like 1%, which is pretty debilitating) but possible.

So to me, ( just so you know where I am coming from) when you look at the big picture you see a global population, especially in the West ( data availability), that is starting to experience increased breathing problems which forces me to the tentative conclusion that atmospheric O2 depletion causing mild hypoxemia may be, in part, responsible.

Sorry, that simply makes no sense. The tiny changes you are talking about are completely dwarfed by the larger changes in a city like Denver (or even Leadville.) If such small changes would lead to increased breathing problems, anxiety, opioid use, hyperventilation etc then people would be coked to the gills and panting nonstop in Denver, never mind Leadville (at 10,000 feet.) If those 1% changes you talk about are enough to cause all those problems, then at 5% people would be hypoxic, barely able to breathe, having all sorts of serious medical problems.

Yet they run ultramarathons in Leadville, perhaps the strongest possible evidence that people can adapt to such changes.

Suffice to say that we Humans are incredibly sensitive and thus responsive to "actual" O2 levels.

That is simply not proven out (or even suggested) by any medical data. Indeed, the opposite is true. While people notice rising CO2 levels very rapidly, they don't notice low O2 levels at all, often until it's too late. There have been several cases of people unknowingly working in tanks that were full of nitrogen or helium or other inert gas (i.e. 0% oxygen.) They seemed to be fine until they collapsed. As far as they could tell everything was fine - because we determine how breathable air is primarily by how much CO2 is in it, not how much O2 is in it. (The ones that could be retrieved quickly survived.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Thanks.
Just did quick research into thunderstorm asthma events. Numerous people have died. Locally we had a significant event where at least 8 people died and thousands hospitalized.
See: https://abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/thunderstorm-asthma-eighth-person-dies-from-melbourne/8074776
If you research you will find that the causation is attributed to pollin entering the lungs causing a severe and life threatening allergic reaction.
Sounds good so far, yes?
However one would normally see that pollin has been conclusively shown to be present in the lungs via autopsy. No such evidence has actually been presented. So we are left with "accepted speculation" that states that the causation may be an alergic reaction to polin.

What is puzzling is and you may help clear it up, is that ample time has been available for thorough investigation via lung tissue sample (Autopsy) and yet no conclusions are available. This leads me to believe that the deaths of 8 and hospitalization of thousands in the most recent event MAY NOT be attributed to polin alergy.

I find it puzzling that their has been no conclusive evidence found when ample time has been available to find it. Perhaps finding polin in the lungs is beyond medical science?
This leaves a question of what exactly prompted such a massive reaction to occur?
My guess is that it was due to the pressure differentials created as the cold front moved through. ( again associated with O2 changes and sensitivities.)

 

[Quantum Quack]

If those 1% changes you talk about are enough to cause all those problems, then at 5% people would be hypoxic, barely able to breathe, having all sorts of serious medical problems.

Maybe I am beating a dead horse, but I'll try again.
It is not the quantity of O2 that is in question. It is the ratio of O2 to other gasses that is.
Humans can and do aclimatize to lower partial pressure.(altitude) quite well but the same can not be said for changes in ratio.

 

[Quantum Quack]

If such small changes would lead to increased breathing problems, anxiety, opioid use, hyperventilation etc then people would be coked to the gills and panting nonstop in Denver, never mind Leadville (at 10,000 feet.) If those 1% changes you talk about are enough to cause all those problems, then at 5% people would be hypoxic, barely able to breathe, having all sorts of serious medical problems.

Yet they run ultramarathons in Leadville, perhaps the strongest possible evidence that people can adapt to such changes.

This indicates a confusion.
Of course marathon running in Leadville is possible after people acclimatize to low atmospheric pressure. This is not in dispute.
The pressure may be low but the ratio of gasses remains the same as at sea level.

If the same marathon was run in an atmosphere that had say 19.5 O2 and higher rates of Nitrogen, I wonder whether they would even be able to run it... (Nitrogen is or can be poisonous btw)

for example:
Case 1/ Leadville: 78 % N2, 21% O2, 1% other
after acclimatization marathon runs ok.
Case 2/ Leadville: 80% N2, 19% O2, 1% other
after acclimatization marathon performance is negatively effected.
and so on...

 

[iceaura]

It is not the quantity of O2 that is in question. It is the ratio of O2 to other gasses that is.

So do the arithmetic, and realize that even large percentage increases in CO2 make very little difference to the "ratio" of O2 overall.

e.g. (using Wiki numbers) We currently enjoy an atmosphere in which of every 10,000 molecules of gas 2095 are oxygen and 7905 are other. Of that 7095, 4 are carbon dioxide. Let's triple the CO2 - we now have an atmosphere in which of every 10,008 molecules 12 are carbon dioxide.
Now do the ratios:
the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere is now (100)(2095/10,008) = 20.93 (rounding down, to maximize the effect), down from 20.95%;
the ratio of oxygen to all other gas is 2095/7103 = .29495, down from .29528;
and of 10,000 molecules randomly selected we expect 2093 to be oxygen, down 2 molecules from current expectation.

That's from tripling the current already boosted CO2 levels.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So do the arithmetic, and realize that even large percentage increases is CO2 make very little difference to the "ratio" of O2 overall.

ok if we assume that the ratio of 4 units of O2 consumed to every 1 unit of CO2 produced
you would see a reduction of O2 of 4:1 and an increase in Co2 and other gasses accordingly... Nitrogen for example would also gain.
Include O2 consumed to produce ocean acidification and bingo there ain't much left of our 1 % safety margin.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Outcomes of long term exposure to low atmospheric O2 ratios is what?
We know motor co-ordination is effected at <20% but what about extended (many years) exposure to <20%?
Say for example you had an atmosphere regardless of altitude that was:
80.084 N2 ( up 2)
18.946 O2 ( down 2)
0.04% CO2 ( steady)
0.07% other gasses ( steady)
-------------
100% total

What physiological symptoms would you expect especially over the longer term?

Reverse calculating:
The 400ppm figure only relates to atmospheric CO2 and doesn't include CO2 absorbed by the oceans.
If you include acidification ( 30 - 40% of CO2) output. the 400ppm becomes more like a total of 1000ppm.
test: 40% of 1000 = 400
To produce 1000 ppm of CO2 at a rate of 4:1 means that you would have to consume at least 4000 ppm of O2.

...but wait there is more......
CO2 is not the only gas generated by burning fuel with oxygen...Oxygen consumption has to be higher than 4000 ppm by an unknown amount.

To reduce the percentage of O2 in a closed system by more than 0.4% must lead to serious consequences when a minimum of 20% is required for healthy living. ( 1% safety margin)

The point is simple:
Green house effects aka Hyperthermia is not our only problem. Hypoxemia is or will become a huge issue.

 

[iceaura]

ok if we assume that the ratio of 4 units of O2 consumed to every 1 unit of CO2 produced

That makes no sense.

But if you feed that odd assumption into the calculation above, you would get a reduction of 32 molecules of oxygen to buy the 8 molecules CO2, and would be left with 2063 oxygen for every 9976 molecules of air. Thats air at 20.68% oxygen, instead of 20.95%.

Include O2 consumed to produce ocean acidification

? Not following that either.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That makes no sense.

But if you feed that odd assumption into the calculation above, you would get a reduction of 32 molecules of oxygen to buy the 8 molecules CO2, and would be left with 2063 oxygen for every 9976 molecules of air. Thats air at 20.68% oxygen, instead of 20.95%.
? Not following that either.

There is indeed a mistake but not necessarily as you have described...sorry about that.
Reverse calculating on the fly is a pain in the butt...

The actual gain in Anthro CO2 is not 400ppm since the industrial revolution (1750- 2017) it is more like 126ppm. My bad sorry!
Please ignore that post entirely as it appears I've scrambled the egg somewhat.
I incorrectly claimed the whole 400ppm as anthro CO2 ( using a Tablet to post with, is my excuse)and other terrible mistakes.
I'll come back with more thought out figures later....

 

[Quantum Quack]

Apologies!
As you have probably guessed Math is not my forte.
Premises:
Total gain in anthro atmospheric CO2 since 1750-2017 = 126 ppm
Total ocean acidification is 40% of Anthro CO2.
Total anthro atmospheric CO2 accounts for 60% of total produced.
therefore:
Find total anthro CO2 gain re: atmospheric and oceans

126 ppm ( 60%) atmospheric CO2
84 ppm (40%) ocean acidification CO2
==
210 ppm ( 100%) total Anthro CO2 since 1750 ( includes atmospheric and oceans)
==
Now obviously it takes O2 to be burned to produce CO2
therefore :
Find O2 levels as of the year 1750
Premise :
current O2 level is 209460 ppm (year 2017)
O2 /fuel ratio of 3:1 ( as per Billvon)
therefore:
to produce 210 ppm of CO2
3*210 = 630 ppm O2
current O2 209,460ppm + 630ppm = 210090 ppm
so
in the year 1750, O2 levels would be about 21.0090%
so
Year 1750 = 21.009% O2
Year 2017 = 20.946% O2

and as every one has been suggesting, O2 reduction is too small to worry about. ( Only if the current O2 % is correct and we don't consider that the bulk of this reduction would have occurred in the last 80 years or so due to growth in population and industrial excess)
(I do hope I finally got some sense out of my math...)
While all figures may vary the troubling constant is the 20% thresh hold for human health.

 

[geordief]

Is that interesting?

https://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-261...he-air-and-are-nearly-impossible-to-kill.html

"

• Not only is the Sansevieria unbelievably hardy, but it converts carbon dioxide into oxygen at night. (Most other common houseplants only do this during the day.)"

 

[Quantum Quack]

So do the arithmetic, and realize that even large percentage increases in CO2 make very little difference to the "ratio" of O2 overall.

e.g. (using Wiki numbers) We currently enjoy an atmosphere in which of every 10,000 molecules of gas 2095 are oxygen and 7905 are other. Of that 7095, 4 are carbon dioxide. Let's triple the CO2 - we now have an atmosphere in which of every 10,008 molecules 12 are carbon dioxide.
Now do the ratios:
the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere is now (100)(2095/10,008) = 20.93 (rounding down, to maximize the effect), down from 20.95%;
the ratio of oxygen to all other gas is 2095/7103 = .29495, down from .29528;
and of 10,000 molecules randomly selected we expect 2093 to be oxygen, down 2 molecules from current expectation.

That's from tripling the current already boosted CO2 levels.

Agh!!! You are totally correct...
hee hee... I screwed up big time...
Now I am just trying to work out why I got stuck on such a bullshit idea...
Thanks for your correction...

 

[billvon]

If the same marathon was run in an atmosphere that had say 19.5 O2 and higher rates of Nitrogen, I wonder whether they would even be able to run it... (Nitrogen is or can be poisonous btw)

Of course they would. Saturation divers can do strenuous underwater construction breathing 2% oxygen.

Once again, the ratio of oxygen to other gases DOES NOT MATTER. To repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The only thing that matters with respect to you "getting enough oxygen" is partial pressure of oxygen.

Case 1/ Leadville: 78 % N2, 21% O2, 1% other
after acclimatization marathon runs ok.
Case 2/ Leadville: 80% N2, 19% O2, 1% other
after acclimatization marathon performance is negatively effected.

Without acclimation, I would agree. Not with acclimation.

Alternatively:
Leadville, 22% oxygen - non-acclimated runner has trouble (2.23 PSI ppO2; he is used to ~3)
Sea level, 18% oxygen - non-acclimated runner does better (2.64 PSI ppO2; he is used to ~3)

 

[Quantum Quack]

Of course they would. Saturation divers can do strenuous underwater construction breathing 2% oxygen.

Once again, the ratio of oxygen to other gases DOES NOT MATTER. To repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The only thing that matters with respect to you "getting enough oxygen" is partial pressure of oxygen.



Without acclimation, I would agree. Not with acclimation.

Alternatively:
Leadville, 22% oxygen - non-acclimated runner has trouble (2.23 PSI ppO2; he is used to ~3)
Sea level, 18% oxygen - non-acclimated runner does better (2.64 PSI ppO2; he is used to ~3)

Ok I am starting to see the reason for my concern..perhaps in error so bear with me please...

A basic question that might help if answered:

What happens regarding body oxygen levels during low pressure acclimatization?

The right amount of oxygen starts at sea level. When altitude is increased, such as driving or climbing up a mountain, there is less atmospheric pressure. Lower pressure allows air to expand more than it does at sea level. While the ratio of the oxygen and nitrogen in the air remains the same, less molecules are available within the same space. Each breath you take at a higher altitude contains less oxygen molecules than breathing at a lower altitude. This can cause altitude sickness. Most people afflicted with altitude sickness experience nausea, headache and fatigue...

For humans and many animals to sustain normal functions, the percentage of oxygen required to sustain life falls within a small range. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, determined the optimal range of oxygen in the air for humans runs between 19.5 and 23.5 percent. (src)
​

Acclimatization is about allowing time for blood oxygen saturation to return to the levels experienced at sea level. The time required (relative to altitude) is due to a lack of pressure and not percentage.

Adaption vs acclimatization

Acclimatization can only be successful if ambient atmospheric gas ratios are with in certain safety margins. If atmospheric O2 % is reduced below 19.5% then that is what is adapted to. If O2 is less than 19.5% acclimatization is not possible, adaption with physical side effects takes place instead. ( if at all possible)

While humans a pretty good at acclimatizing ( over time) they are not very good at adaption to low oxygen percentages.

The minimum oxygen concentration in the air required for human breathing is 19.5 percent. The human body takes the oxygen breathed in from the lungs and transports it to the other parts of the body via the body's red blood cells. Each cell uses and requires oxygen to thrive. Most of the time, the air in the atmosphere contains the proper amount of oxygen for safe breathing

Serious side effects can occur if the oxygen levels drop outside the safe zone. When oxygen concentrations drop from 19.5 to 16 percent, and you engage in physical activity, your cells fail to receive the oxygen needed to function correctly. Mental functions become impaired and respiration intermittent at oxygen concentrations that drop from 10 to 14 percent; at these levels with any amount of physical activity, the body becomes exhausted. Humans won't survive with levels at 6 percent or lower. (src)
​

Summary:
Low Pressure acclimatization is always about allowing time to return the body to the optimum blood oxygen levels and this is only possible if the atmospheric oxygen is >19.5% anything less is debilitating but can sometimes be adapted to..

So.. if atmospheric O2 percentages are less than 19.5% successful acclimatization is not possible. ( adaption with health complications is possible)

Am I and my source correct?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Once again, the ratio of oxygen to other gases DOES NOT MATTER. To repeat, IT DOES NOT MATTER.

maybe I have confused you with the use of the term Ratio...sorry about that... shall stick to percentages in future...

 

[iceaura]

The minimum oxygen concentration in the air required for human breathing is 19.5 percent.

That's at standard atmospheric pressure. At higher pressures lower percentages work fine. See Billvon's posts above.

Am I and my source correct?

Adding CO2 to the existing mix does not reduce air pressure - it increases it (slightly). And there is no current climate change scenario involving near term reduction of absolute oxygen quantity in the air anywhere near 1% - as noted above, your worries there would be harmed photosynthesis in the ocean and boosted chemical reactions with rock etc - long term worries.

Keep in mind that a reduction of oxygen in the air would draw more from current reservoirs, especially the ocean, as well as reducing loss rates via fire and weathering and the like. There are cushions.

 

[Quantum Quack]

You and your source are assuming low pressure. But adding CO2 to the existing mix does not reduce air pressure - it increases it (slightly). And there is no current climate change scenario involving near term reduction of absolute oxygen quantity in the air anywhere near 1% - as noted above, your worries there would be harmed photosynthesis in the ocean and boosted chemical reactions with rock etc - long term worries.

agrees!

Keep in mind that a reduction of oxygen in the air would draw more from current reservoirs, especially the ocean, as well as reducing loss rates via fire and weathering and the like. There are cushions.

perhaps offering in part, an explanation for oceanic dead zones of which there are currently more than 400, that can not be easily dismissed as just caused by human affluent and polluting.

There are other events world wide that could be used to suggest that O2 percentages are much less than the 20.964% currently held but I wont bother stressing over them now.

If my concerns are founded:
I would anticipate that evidence of declining percentages would be evident in, for example, lower marathon running times, aircraft engine failure due to running too lean, or any thing that is ultra sensitive to those O2 percentages. ( insects, bees, birds)

The possibility of transient atmospheric low O2 zones forming (eg. ahead of cool change storm fronts) is also on the cards IMO

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's at standard atmospheric pressure. At higher pressures lower percentages work fine. See Billvon's posts above.

Are you saying that the source I quoted from is incorrect?

The minimum oxygen concentration in the air required for human breathing is 19.5 percent

It has nothing to do with pressure.
Low pressure forces the need for acclimatization. In all cases the minimum atmospheric O2% must be >19.5% or acclimatization fails.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Long term human exposure to less than 19.5% O2 is ultimately catastrophic.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Even so, on face value, that means that a relatively trivial amount of O2 has been consumed in the production of our current atmospheric CO2.

as the flora involved have to sustain their own existence with the O2 and CO2 they produce.

algae blooms. die off, sink ... decompose, release methane & Co2
way more methane than Co2
nasa have made some attempts to map algae blooms

as the ocean warms, algae blooms will exponentialy increase.
this is a problem

a methane problem

not to be confused with the arguement over Co2

Anthro CO2 production is significantly higher than the .04% indicated in the atmosphere.

like the allies in WWII observing the trains carrying the jews
noticing only that there seems to be a lot of trains moving.
pausing and saying "well, we dont seem to have any labels on these trains, they dont seem to say what is inside, apart from probably people, maybe not... they seem to be going somewhere... thats for sure".

meanwhile community/jungle/forrest/ocean reports are coming in suggesting there is a lot of missing jews

one would like to think a lesson has been learnt already

like sitting on a run away train and screaming at each other telling the other to prove where the train is going before you do anything about it.
then in a big self back patting cacophony, declaring that everyone should move a little closer to the drivers seat incase something needs to be done soon.
its quite cartoonish really.

the odd thing is humans have evolved to go on living in spite of terrible things(circle back around to my 1st example)
so there is a certain amount of desire to ignore the potential of some things.
this is a human trait. it is what i guessto be a survival process between finding enough food and shelter to survive and being able to stay in one place long enough to survive.
irony jump forward a million years and have a "fence at the top of the cliff Vs an ambulance at the bottom" philisophical debate.
singing the "fence is best at the top of my cliff" song to lemmings whom are running straight for the cliff is probably equally not as intellectualy ligitimate.