O2

[Earthlink]

I'm sorry, I have to do this:

What part of "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" did you not understand?"

[MorningFox]

More info with a post like this would be helpful...

[ljwheat]

I guess we are even sorrier than you Earthlink ? / ? May be waist a bit more of our time with a GPS of where your thoughts are leading this thread to, or even from.? Please waist more of our time. with just a bit more, than just a question mark.

[shadowstalker]

I'm sorry, I have to do this:

What part of "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" did you not understand?"

Was there something posted before what you wrote and was deleted?

[lucidity]

wrong thread? or... wrong website ?

[Sunny-side-up]

Wasn't this to do with one of the resent Fukushima radiation problem AP's, the dying see floor?

[Earthlink]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the_end_of_the_animal_kingdom/

[PurpleLama]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/img/large-wide/ab3f094e-18c4-43f4-93b8-c2d24239e23f.jpg

[PurpleLama]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the_end_of_the_animal_kingdom/
I wrote this originally in 2010, and, it is based on decades of work by some of our best. Our scientists do not get credence from media.

This graph displays the recorded measurements of the O2, or Oxygen, level of our atmosphere. Unlike the countless tens and tens of thousands of mainscream media source articles and reports on Science, created in well funded think tanks with outcomes pre-determined, this type of data, recorded measurements, is immune to slander, and offers no terms to convince us of its authenticity. This is a recording of the seasonal rise and fall of our Oxygen level, from the years 1990 through 2006.

As is akin to standard industry practices it matters not the byproduct or localized effects of our industrial practices, this industry will continue, and everyone now knows that there is no freedom of the press, and that banksters run just about everything here on Earth today, though, we are revolting against this now. And all the while, this issue, one which should have never been trumped, carries on. In this case, regarding the free gas in our atmosphere known as Oxygen, it does not matter what the industry needs are, to exist, for, the needs of this industry and the needs of everything inside what is known as The Animal Kingdom, are one in the same when it comes to O2.

And all the while, the masses of people under the influence of the massive media spin campaigns, do not even know where to set their sights.

Everyone is on about electric generation, and windmills, and solar panels. Lightbulbs and refrigerators. Coal fired power plants that are (points randomly in any direction) hundreds of miles that way somewhere.

While all around you, every day, you can hear them.

Lots of them.

Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) are everywhere around you now, and are used every day in large numbers all around you, just like every other city and country on Earth now, and intenal combustion engines run from fossil fuels. You can hear them whenever they are used, you have no choice, and in spite of this, they are barely ever, if at all, mentioned. These devices, like you, require Oxygen to function, but unlike you and even unlike conventional fire, these devices are hogs. They require much more Oxygen to run than anything around themselves. Where hundreds of conventional candles can share a room with us, not even a small one of these can be brought into even very large rooms and be turned on, for, within minutes they will deplete enough Oxygen from their surroundings to kill everyone in the area.

For the record, in 2010 there were 1 billion registered and plated passenger vehicle cars, all countries combined, and that is just the passenger vehicle cars. What gets used, every day, amounts to billions of ICE's world wide, and is where the bulk of the 100 million barrels of oil that "we" burn every day goes. There are dispensaries (gas stations) and carrying devices (gas cans) all around you. How anyone could come up with fuzzy enough math to somehow have coal and other industries liable for anything near the massive ammount of emissions created by billions of ICE devices is an aspiring target, and yet, they seem to have achieved it.

Still though, nobody even seems to have noticed that species, all species insect bird and fish, are now falling faster than days. Birds are falling dead out of the sky in the thousands at a time. Fish are dying by the hundreds of thousands. (fish, like all others in the Animal Kingdom, rely on our atmosphere as their source of Oxygen, and it is through wave action and slow permeation from the atmosphere that O2 makes it into water) Internal combustion engines produce CO, CO2, NO, NO2, SO, SO2, HO and H2O2 (a.k.a. exhaust fumes, which, the media only ever refers to as CO2 for some reason) and all of those gasses are rich in O, which stands for Oxygen, and, as fossil fuels are Hydrocarbons with no Oxygen in them, all of the O's required to make these gasses inside the motor, comes from, or rather is taken from, our atmosphere.

We even have a term now in our lexicon called Dead Zones, and they have been increasing in both frequency and severity since being used first in the year 2000. Dead Zones are areas in both water and air that do not contain enough Oxygen to support the life forms in question, and so, they all die, quickly. I can go weeks without food, days without water, and only a matter of seconds (up to 180 seconds?) without a sufficient supply (varies by species, around 19.50% for Humans) of Oxygen. That is how my machine runs, and so does every other creature in the Animal Kingdom. It took The Plant Kingdom billions of years to enrich the atmosphere to roughly a quarter, or 25%, with O2 and enable us and other species to leave the constant power supply of the ground, and only 1 century for the fossil industrial complex to deplete it to the point (19.7218% today, depending on elevation, and falling) where some species (soon to be all) have to now return to The Plant Kingdom, some how.

Anyway, these are actual readings. There isn't room for interpretation here, as when you measure something, all you are doing is counting it.

It is my opinion that this is beyond not good.

Look up 'birds falling from the sky' or 'dead birds falling from the sky' on google or you tube video sites. Do another video search for 'Dead Zones'. Those would be the most important video searches you will ever do. You'll see some stories of fish in there too. Look for the thousands of doves that fell from the sky in Italy. They were all white doves, and because of their colour, you can easily see the blue stains in their dead mouths. Blue stains = Hypoxia, or, lack of Oxygen, as the cause of death.

This isn't a joke, it is our reality.

But none in the higher level of our society dare to stand up to the fossil industrial complex. Why? Because they spend inordinant amounts of monies convncing people otherwise, right up to even kill people, to get their way. The only recourse most people have to this, would be to switch anything they have that is powered by a liquid fuel, to another device that does the same thing but is powered by an electric motor; and it would have to be, at this late date, all of them; cars trucks and busses included, all of the things around yourself that use them. If everybody did that, this elemental problem would be solved. Tesla and Einstein were the last publicly displayed victims to these banksters who both spoke similarly in favour of electric motors. There have been more, but never in the public eye. Einstein also said that it is a mistake for us to share our world with devices that, like me, consume Oxygen. And he said that decades ago, after he noticed it was infact falling, because of actual readings taken over various years. The last 15 years of his life, he was greatly concerned for our future, because of this.

Finally, I live in Canada. Every year for the last 10 there has been fewer and fewer insects and birds every year. The Butterfly's are all but gone, amongst many other insect types, too many to name, and most of which I never knew their name to begin with. It is now quiet outside at night. [2011 actually saw some of them come back, and it is not completely silent at night, as it was in 09 and 10, however their nightly song is discordant and most of the pieces of the orchestra are missing, where it used to be very loud every night] Elevation has much to do with this, as O2, with an atomic weight of 16, is a relatively fat heavy gas, and is the most concentrated at the surface. I have friends who live in a coffee growing region of Brasil, up in the mountains, and they don't have any birds or insects anymore.

The canary is not in a coal mine, the canary is on the surface, and, the canary has fallen.

We will have all of the creatures in the Animal Kingdom, or we will have the fossil industrial complex, but we will not have both.

Further, we no longer have the time needed to switch our transportation sector (35 times the GHG output of all of the coal power plants combined) to electric motors anymore. We need to start producing Oxygen, from water, right now.

I'm so so sorry it has gotten this far, I truly am, but their absolute control over media is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Human race.

And there are two things I'd like to focus on. The solution.

The first is called electrolysis. That would be just dumping excess electricity, (which, all power production system make, since, big compressors and industrial electrical use have to turn on and off, the power must be there all the time, so, power plants have to over produce their loads, and, that surplus power is just grounded out now to a suitable ground) into water, and therefore creating vast amounts of both Oxygen and Hydrogen which can just be released into the air. The cost to do this is insignificant, and, insignificant to the purpose. Also, with the number of power grids we have globally, we could adjust the current deadly level up to a sustainable 21% in a calendar year or less, if, we all participated. There are power grid groups, and existing affiliations, all over the world who just deal in electrical production, so, it is well within reasonable limits.

The second is doing a quick inventory and get as many varied species as we can into Oxygen enriched environments, since, their numbers are declining rapidly now and we will out live them.

Existing greenhouses, which we have many of, and many of those are chem free and organic too, can quickly and easily be retrofitted to house insects and birds, and we can freshen the air additionally by releasing Oxygen from O2 tanks (cylinders) which we already have many of, and use in both mfg and health care extensively, and the industry already exists and thrives.

And I'd like to close by saying that everything is simple, and when we apply ourselves, things happen.

And that we're good like that.

Also the rapid deployment of electric cars, busses, trucks, taxi cabs, street sweepers, lawn mowers: everywhere ICE's are currently being used, would help immensely.

http://www.facebook.com/David.Cardill

The Url link above is to my facebook page, where messages can be sent. I'm an engineer, dictionary definition, (the operative word from the dictionary is "builds"), and if you put the 10 best engineers alive today in one room, I'm in that room. So is my brother, and everything we've ever designed we also proceeded to build. We've design built buildings, roads, small electric generation, water sewer and utilities ... irrigation, anything to do with water. Lots of stuff, over what is coming up on 40 years of running and working in 5 family owned companies, in the Ottawa Valley region of Canada, and some of the stuff we did, especially in the 80's when the door between private enterprises and all of these various government departments in this area was still open, and the collaboration on the geothermal systems and peat bed waste water treatment projects we did then was first in the field work. That was a time when the spirit of doing the work was enough to keep everybody involved happy and interested, and doing new things in the interest of helping all of us was its' own reward, and justified us going down some roads that needed to be plotted and made familiar. I'm not sure when I beame a physicist, I think I was just born one, as I've always scored close to or at 100% on all the tests I've ever taken in physics courses, and I still read from the new work ongoing in the realm of physics, which, there is much these days, not the least of which is the realization (photographs) that all matter is in fact energy. This opens the door to the assertion that everything is therefore alive, since, energy is animate. A little further into this room, and you'll start believing that there is no such thing as "dead".

Anyway, all of this work and more will cease if we do not address the elemental problem noted above.

We need to live here, on Earth, as if we were permanently here, otherwise, we will only be here temporarily.

^^^^The above is the full text of the article. Very important information, IMO.

[ghostrider]

they cut down trees , and increase the number of humans on Earth ... less air more C02 , poison , it harms nature and animals and us ... Mars lost it's atmosphere and they had to flee to Earth ... ever seen what it does to a person in a garage with the car running ??? that's what are whole planet is , cars running , people suffering from all sorts of body troubles , migraines , tiredness ... the ET's had plenty to say about this ... they say there are too many people on Earth to sustain the balance of nature and mankind ... they suggest a birth stop ...

[yelik]

I'm not a climate expert but the graph shows declining oxygen levels as a percent of nitrogen in the atmosphere. Probably to do with deforestation and the like as well as burning fossil fuels, pollution, radiation contamination, chemtrailing, increasing population, sun heating up. In fact everything to kill us off I suspect. A decline in the insect and bird population are early warning signs.

[Earthlink]

The O2/N2 ratio expressed in this graph is a measurement of both, yes, and the old guys working at the atmospheric monitoring station still insist on doing it the old fashioned way, with flask samples and all, and of course insist is is more accurate, even while we have them backed up with automated sensors similar to the ones used in mining operations around the world to keep miners alive, which are accurate to 4 decimal points. There isn't a discrepancy between their numbers and the highly accurate gauges, and, I think they should be allowed to keep their jobs too ;)

This also makes one think about the real ratio between Nitrogen and Carbon in internal combustion engines, and perhaps is a reminder that CO, CO2, NO and NO2 are all produced in equal amounts.

[betoobig]

there is a weird record in history, in the 80´s, another low level of oxigen in the atmosphere, deadly low; suddenly, from one day to the other, the level rised up... no one knows how.

Love

[Flash]

Very interesting topic Earthling, but..

I almost flush the thread, meaning not reading it at all. Why? because there were no topic in the first post - if you think that your way attracts attention and makes more readership, maybe a review of this approach could be more efficient.

Thanks to Purplelama, I continued reading. And yes Beetobig, I saw the same records you did in the 80's.??

I would suggest that you put some information on your first post to attract readership and discussion on a larger scale, This topic is very interesting and ties in wonderfully with chemtrailing us, with poisoning the earth, with dumbing us down, the best way being a lack of adequate levels of oxygen. Until our red blood cell enlarge to take more in, as it is the case for the native of Machu Pichu and Titicaca lake.

Also, oxygen was much higher when dinosaurs existed, it seems.

[ThePythonicCow]

http://www.filmsforaction.org/img/large-wide/ab3f094e-18c4-43f4-93b8-c2d24239e23f.jpg
Presenting this graph without explanation of what the numbers mean tells us nothing beyond showing that something relating to oxygen/nitrogen ratios is falling, somewhere, and with appropriate scaling, that fall can be made to look dramatic.

This graph is explained at this page: Scripps Oxygen (O2) Concentration Measurements - Mauna Loa (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/o2/o2.html).

As it explains on that page:

The O2/N2 ratio is expressed in per meg units, which express the relative change in the O2/N2 from a standard ratio, multiplied by 1 million.
So the graph is showing us that over the sixteen years from 1990 to 2006, the O2/N2 concentration fell by about 250 parts per million, relative to a standard ratio. This is as measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/), in Hawaii, USA, which is about 3400 meters above sea level.

In other words, the oxygen concentration declined about 1/40-th of one-percent, over that period (1/4 of one part per thousand.)

It looks more dramatic when you multiply the vertical axis by one million to scale it :).

[Earthlink]

It doesn't matter what some of "the science" says in this game Paul, there is science to refute everything. Anything and everything can and has been refuted.

On this one I'm going by the only lighthouse I know to be true, because I maintain it myself. I am going by an eye witness account on this one, and it is based entirely on that which I used to see with my own eyes and no longer see now with my own eyes, and that which I used to hear with my own ears and no longer hear now with my own ears.

Your words have fallen to the floor for me, and have no meaning over my own eye witness account.

I'm sorry.

[Earthlink]

Words can not bring back the Butterflies. There comes a point in these games of interpretation where in order for the words themselves to carry meaning they are going to have to be capable of miraculous achievements, which, we know they can not do.

[ThePythonicCow]

On this one I'm going by the only lighthouse I know to be true, because I maintain it myself. I am going by an eye witness account on this one, and it is based entirely on that which I used to see with my own eyes and no longer see now with my own eyes, and that which I used to hear with my own ears and no longer hear now with my own ears.
And, pray tell, what did your eyes once see, but no longer see ?


Words can not bring back the Butterflies.
Ah - you used to see butterflies, where now you see none?

Ok - that doesn't surprise me greatly, given the variety of toxins that we humans have been putting into the air, earth and water of late.

My analysis of how small was the change in the oxygen to nitrogen ratio at the Mauna Lao Observatory does not contradict your observations of an absence of butterflies.

Both could easily be true.

[ThePythonicCow]

Nor for that matter to the several comments above trying to make sense of your earlier posts show disagreement with, or dismissal of, your observations.

For the most part they simply show an inability to guess what the heck you meant. It would be easier to understand your posts, and to engage in useful discussion, if you could find a way to explain more completely what you are trying to say.

[Violet]

It doesn't matter what some of "the science" says in this game Paul, there is science to refute everything. Anything and everything can and has been refuted.

On this one I'm going by the only lighthouse I know to be true, because I maintain it myself. I am going by an eye witness account on this one, and it is based entirely on that which I used to see with my own eyes and no longer see now with my own eyes, and that which I used to hear with my own ears and no longer hear now with my own ears.

Your words have fallen to the floor for me, and have no meaning over my own eye witness account.

I'm sorry.

Earthlink, I was once going to write a little thing about what you express here. Briefly: two ends: strong characters who don't really care about what other people think as opposed to those who can't move without the approval of others. (jumping & skipping parts) And how messages, true though they are, can receive big blows by not considering the course of reception by an audience.

In this case you simply need other people to complete/complement (?) the realness of what you are trying to say. Your eye witness account is not enough for this. It's enough to you, but I take it you are trying to bring out a signal. The readers are in that out part. Hope that make sense or is helpful in any way.

[eaglespirit]

Love It or Leave It!
Spirit Conscious Breaths of Your Own Highest Focus of Fruition of Re-Birth of Mother Earth,
From the Highest Pure to the Loving Core...
Every Breath You Take, Every Breath You Make...Releasing Unconditional Loving Life, Naturally!
http://wakeup-world.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/protect-our-mother-earth-by-lhianne.png

[Bright Garlick]

I wonder how O2 levels relate to the various solar cycles, contractions and expansions of the polar ice sheets, contraction and expansion of the worlds oceans and contraction and expansion of the inner and outer atmosphere and magnetosphere ? Naturally deforestation and reducing grasslands and cyanobacteria/phytoplankton (diatoms etc) and destabilizingthe world soils are major culprits but surely there are also natural cycles ? ;-) There are so many biochemical cycles related to oxygen production - looking at additive effects is only one small angle is it not ?Are dead zones really dead zones or zones where other non O2 metabolisms take place ?

[betoobig]

Please Earthlink be sure that miracles are expected...
...Love

[Flash]

On this one I'm going by the only lighthouse I know to be true, because I maintain it myself. I am going by an eye witness account on this one, and it is based entirely on that which I used to see with my own eyes and no longer see now with my own eyes, and that which I used to hear with my own ears and no longer hear now with my own ears.
And, pray tell, what did your eyes once see, but no longer see ?


Words can not bring back the Butterflies.
Ah - you used to see butterflies, where now you see none?

Ok - that doesn't surprise me greatly, given the variety of toxins that we humans have been putting into the air, earth and water of late.

My analysis of how small was the change in the oxygen to nitrogen ratio at the Mauna Lao Observatory does not contradict your observations of an absence of butterflies.

Both could easily be true.

Thanks Paul for taking the time to analyse where the data is from and what it truly is. For me, here, discussion closed on O2 levels.
Lets get back to the real impacts of human actions, such as chemtrails and vaccines and free energy cover ups and satanism and.... we have enough of these to go forever.

[Nick Matkin]

The first is called electrolysis. That would be just dumping excess electricity, (which, all power production system make, since, big compressors and industrial electrical use have to turn on and off, the power must be there all the time, so, power plants have to over produce their loads, and, that surplus power is just grounded out now to a suitable ground) into water, and therefore creating vast amounts of both Oxygen and Hydrogen which can just be released into the air. The cost to do this is insignificant, and, insignificant to the purpose. Also, with the number of power grids we have globally, we could adjust the current deadly level up to a sustainable 21% in a calendar year or less, if, we all participated. There are power grid groups, and existing affiliations, all over the world who just deal in electrical production, so, it is well within reasonable limits.


Where does this information come from? (This is what happens when technical information gets misinterpreted and innocently repeated.)

Power companies don't 'over produce'. Why would they do that? They are there to make a profit! There is something called 'base load', the minimum requirements of a power grid and usually produced by coal and nuclear power plants run at maximum output and maximum efficiency 24/7. The peaks are filled in by gas and hydro plants (like the Welsh Dinorwig Plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station)) to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your sentence about excess power being turned into oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis. If this is done anywhere to uses excess power can you supply a reference? If you're suggesting it would be a good idea, it probably wouldn't be simply because the power needed to do it is greater that the power released by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to make water. (There are plenty of schemes claiming this can be done efficiently, but strangely they never reach production. Funny that...)

General point about oxygen levels; since it's about 21 percent of the air and has been for millennia, it will take a long time for a significant drop. Nevertheless, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees will inevitably lead to gradually falling levels.

I did a bit of Googling to see how long we'd manage if all natural oxygen generation stopped (mostly from forests and plankton), yet we continued industrially as we are now. Apparently that's a very complex question, but estimates are between 5,000 and 50,000 years before we all suffocated!

Nick

[Earthlink]

The first is called electrolysis. That would be just dumping excess electricity, (which, all power production system make, since, big compressors and industrial electrical use have to turn on and off, the power must be there all the time, so, power plants have to over produce their loads, and, that surplus power is just grounded out now to a suitable ground) into water, and therefore creating vast amounts of both Oxygen and Hydrogen which can just be released into the air. The cost to do this is insignificant, and, insignificant to the purpose. Also, with the number of power grids we have globally, we could adjust the current deadly level up to a sustainable 21% in a calendar year or less, if, we all participated. There are power grid groups, and existing affiliations, all over the world who just deal in electrical production, so, it is well within reasonable limits.


Where does this information come from? (This is what happens when technical information gets misinterpreted and innocently repeated.)

Power companies don't 'over produce'. Why would they do that? They are there to make a profit! There is something called 'base load', the minimum requirements of a power grid and usually produced by coal and nuclear power plants run at maximum output and maximum efficiency 24/7. The peaks are filled in by gas and hydro plants (like the Welsh Dinorwig Plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station)) to provide a fast response to short-term rapid changes in power demand.

Perhaps I have misinterpreted your sentence about excess power being turned into oxygen and hydrogen by electrolysis. If this is done anywhere to uses excess power can you supply a reference? If you're suggesting it would be a good idea, it probably wouldn't be simply because the power needed to do it is greater that the power released by recombining the hydrogen and oxygen to make water. (There are plenty of schemes claiming this can be done efficiently, but strangely they never reach production. Funny that...)

General point about oxygen levels; since it's about 21 percent of the air and has been for millennia, it will take a long time for a significant drop. Nevertheless, burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees will inevitably lead to gradually falling levels.

I did a bit of Googling to see how long we'd manage if all natural oxygen generation stopped (mostly from forests and plankton), yet we continued industrially as we are now. Apparently that's a very complex question, but estimates are between 5,000 and 50,000 years before we all suffocated!

Nick

... a couple of things here: yes Nick, that article needs to be edited. You are correct, it is not the individual power plants per say that over produce, it is that only a percentage of what they are producing enters the grid. If my compressor in my garage turns on, what we do not want to see, on the grid, is the lights at my neighbours house dim every time my compressor turns on, and, the way the grid does this is that it always has up to 20% more power available than what is currently being used by the grid. Every night, for example, when it gets dark, all the street lights in all the cities are going to turn on, and since we can not effectively ramp up or down the generation of electricity to match these fluctuations, what the grid is set up to do is to always have more than it needs, so that when something else turns on, the power is already there. It is through a shunt, or a gate, that excess power is grounded out, since, it can't be stored without some battery banks or other such devices. There is a term referred to as "spinning reserve" and the grid always has this. It is built in to the grid, and, they all operate this way. (I am an electrical engineer)

also, I do not intend to turn water into Oxygen and Hydrogen just to turn it back into water again, I intend to turn water into Oxygen and Hydrogen and release the Oxygen into the atmosphere, to keep the remainder of all of the species inside The Animal Kingdom alive.

this isn't wishful fanciful thinking, this is a desperate action for survival.

sooo much dis-information ... sooo little time ...

if anyone wants to know the truth about the O2 level of our atmosphere, I strongly suggest you go to a book store and find books from the early 1900's up to the 1940's and see what they say. depending on what year the book was written, the O2 level will be presented in these books as either 24%, 23%, or 22%, depending on what year the book was writ, and if you find the results of the first time we measured it, it will tell you that it was roughly a quarter, or 25%, of the non-water gasses in the air.

finally, it isn't 21% now, and it has not been so for over a decade. right now it is very close to the point where Humans will begin to loose consciousness. high elevation places on Earth where people dwell, such as in Tibet and Peru, have seen increases in the rates of deaths by hypoxia, and these cases are coming down the mountain and affecting more and more people in lower elevations. the base camp at mount everest is moved down 3000 metres per year these days, as this is the point where one can go no further without an oxygen mask.

[Earthlink]

... and, mount everest is a good case study in this. in 1949 it is debatable whether sir edmund hillary used a mask or not to get to the top, the original account said he did not, and what this tells me is that in 1949 the livable portion of our atmosphere was somewhere beyond the top of the highest mountain on Earth. today, you can not get to within many thousands of metres from the top without an oxygen mask, and, this is lowering every.calendar.year.now

[Earthlink]

and do you know what else?!?!?! I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GO LOOKING IN OLD TEXTBOOKS TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH OF SOMETHING!!! WHAT IS WRONG WITH US???

[Earthlink]

and i do know this: because of these campaigns of dis-information, campaigns of mis-information and campaigns of just stupid willy nilly pie in the sky bogus science and doctored scientific findings, most of the insect fish and bird populations here on Earth today: are gone!!!

[Nick Matkin]

From Eathlink: ...and, the way the grid does this is that it always has up to 20% more power available than what is currently being used by the grid. Every night, for example, when it gets dark, all the street lights in all the cities are going to turn on, and since we can not effectively ramp up or down the generation of electricity to match these fluctuations, what the grid is set up to do is to always have more than it needs, so that when something else turns on, the power is already there.

If you mean that 20 percent more than is needed is generated, well that's not the case in the UK! Transmission losses are only about 4 to 5 percent, but I don't think that's relevant here.

I'm looking at the total UK load now: 44.65 GW. Generated from coal 15.23 GW; nuclear 8.47 GW; gas turbines 12.3 GW; wind 3.6 GW, and the rest comes from Hydro, biomas, and reversible power links from France, Holland and Ireland. (I hope that's not a National Secret!)

It all adds up to the UK load of 44.65 GW right now, 1600 gmt, 12 Feb 2015. To the best of my knowledge, we don't 'ground' excess power here. If there is excess power it's sent overseas via our reversible links.

The whole point of some of the gas-powered and the Welsh Dinorwig plants is exactly to deliver power during sudden demands. The most common causes being during important televised national events (major sport for example) where six million 3kW kettles all get switched on at the end of the programme! These extra power plants can deliver this sudden demand in seconds.

I very much doubt the UK power grid network is better balanced that any other.

The death of Princess Diana illustrates an interesting aspect to this. The very widely observed two-minutes silence at 11am on 6 September on the day of her funeral nearly brought the UK power grind down. The power companies had made allowance for a drop in demand and were ready to temporarily remove generating capacity. This was not not necessarily to save money for just two minutes, but if the power generated is too great for the load, not only does the 50Hz mains frequency rise beyond the permitted limits, but networks start to trip off.

However, the drop in demand was severely underestimated, and an insider told me that the mains frequency rose to over 52Hz and parts of the network were on the verge of being automatically disconnected!

This is a good example of why we do not/cannot generate more than we need.

Nick

Edit:
PS: Earthlink, you say you are an electrical engineer...?

[giovonni]

Greeting's

i think (believe) your on to something that is most definitely occurring within earths atmosphere ... i have especially noticed this during the last 7 years (living in respectively the Midwest, East Coast, Southwest and now presently in the Pacific Northwest) ... i am (what is medically described as) a shallow breather who is more sensitive to these decreasing effects ... note those with respiratory aliments would probably also concur if consulted ... i have continually noticed a steady depletion of plant and wild life in the U.S. as well as a decline in the world's rainforest with little replenishment ... which i undoubtedly believe is related to the crazed raping of earth's natural resources by a few suspect nations .. fueling their economic growth appetites and producing ever increasing pollution to the global environment ... and last but not lest the continuous (criminal) chemical spraying by U. S. government contractors with no given official explanation and or end in sight ?

Of course just my personal observations and opinion folks ...

PS ~ i have countered (in the past) some of the side effects to my system by drinking this unique water (http://www.langenburgwater.com/p/home) ...
but it is now to expensive for my retired budget.

[Earthlink]

alas, it doesn't matter how big my heart is, the reality of life on Earth today in this climate of disinformation and purely speculative bogus science reports, only one thing will remain true for most people: never saw it coming, never knew what hit them.

what concerns me most of this is that all the fish insects and birds are in the same boat: never saw it coming, never knew what hit them.

why do I bother ...

[Earthlink]

... i do have a well developed sense of imagination and can and will entertain any thought at least once. you have to, to explore it.

well, has Mars recovered yet? did it "bounce back" after we trashed it, and then abandoned it, or did it in fact remain quite dead to us?

(i don't mean this to be taken seriously, it's just an exploration into the un-proven and unknown)

[giovonni]

alas, it doesn't matter how big my heart is, the reality of life on Earth today in this climate of disinformation and purely speculative bogus science reports, only one thing will remain true for most people: never saw it coming, never knew what hit them.

what concerns me most of this is that all the fish insects and birds are in the same boat: never saw it coming, never knew what hit them.

why do I bother ...

You bother because you obviously care ...

and by caring you are allowing for the changes to come in the manifesting ...

i do believe nature will make the necessary adjustments in due time ...
all things must pass ... but life no doubt will always continue.

Blessings to those who care !

[Earthlink]

I agree completely Giovonni. Life will continue, of this I have no doubts, for, it is Life and only Life, which is what we can safely call "reverse entropy", that is responsible for everything in the known universe. would it not for Life, everything in the universe would have been cold and completely lifeless trillions of years ago.

it's just ... I don't want to be a tree in my next life. I went through that already, we all did.

I also know that in the grand scheme of things 250 million years is nothing to the timeless trillions of years that have already passed, and the trillions of years that are to come.

the thing is right now I am able to enjoy this Life, and all the evolutionary work that went into getting it to this stage, where we can, free of the earth itself, move around, dance, and build musical instruments. I'm happy here now, like this, and the only "fun" i see myself having as a tree in the future, would be if I was in a forest with all the "climate change deniers" and then spent a few thousand years at a time putting my branches up to block the sun from getting to them, and continuously drop my acorns at their base, so that my kids can grow up and mess with them too ...

and that's not very fun compared to what I have here now.

[giovonni]

i recall reading the book (Seth Speaks) years ago, and he spoke of the experience of living as a tree ...
as the most complex, exhilarating and fulfilling ever upon this planet ... bless the trees ...

note it is for water and the tree's that i moved out here to the Great Northwest five years ago ...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/v/t1.0-9/554928_573424569386102_277294053_n.jpg?oh=1d2832cc93ce492b9271f16647d2fc0c&oe=558CDB3C&__gda__=1431961458_d44a15d7c74335678f5583549eb42ceb

[Earthlink]

... i have to laugh to prevent myself from crying, so, over the next 250 million years, once you re-learn how to speak as a tree, likely the first message you'll receive from another tree, will be me, telling you to go mate with yourself. no insects = asexual species only!!!

everything we knew of male and female will disappear for a while, until it, in that lightning quick speed of evolution, returns.

fml

i haven't given up yet, however, the campaigns of disinformation have not either.

i honestly can not believe how stupid and trivial these debates have been and continue to be. it's like being in a pre-school sandbox, it really is, especially while the subject of these stupid and banal discussions is the very survival of all Life here!!!

just ... un-believeable ...

[ThePythonicCow]

... and, mount everest is a good case study in this. in 1949 it is debatable whether sir edmund hillary used a mask or not to get to the top, the original account said he did not, and what this tells me is that in 1949 the livable portion of our atmosphere was somewhere beyond the top of the highest mountain on Earth. today, you can not get to within many thousands of metres from the top without an oxygen mask, and, this is lowering every.calendar.year.now

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest, the fastest climb to the summit of Mt Everest without use of oxygen occurred in 2007:


2007 – Fastest to reach the summit via the northeast ridge, without supplemental oxygen, by Christian Stangl, in 58 hours, 45 minutes

[Earthlink]

see? they're ceaseless. absolutely ceaseless, if one were to look up the stories of the corpses presently lining the trail to the summit, (it's not my job to carry them back down?!?!) or, the stats on the actual base camp, and it's frequent moves and current actual elevation, you'd realize that asserting something as ridiculous as doing so in the calendar year 2007 without an oxygen mask is beyond magical. it is! by saying this now, what one is attempting to do is erase decades of empirical evidence, you know, first hand written accounts, photographs, all of it. that is what that is ... and, they don't care. the more ridiculous an assertion, it seems, the more they like it!

[eaglespirit]

Earthlink, Good Day To You...

Your points are understood and taken!

May it be known that many of Us here at Avalon are quite aware and fully concerned and commune with Mother Nature daily so as to personally offset and spiritually mitigate these matters that anger You.

My prior post may seem like spiritual fluff, I assure You it is not...
the co-creation we can initiate is real...and an entrainment ensues from enough of Us doing the work, as more and more tune to the same concepts and actions and frequencies, we help the momentum of change vigorously...and it becomes more real than any scientific or historic print.

I have experienced it personally and it can be done globally...
with enough heart-centered active participants, yes, US, Together!!!

Most all of us have come from a place of rather extreme anger and disgust as to these mutant matters and then to contemplation and discern and introspect and then "personal spiritual action in real time in all day to day doings!"

Spirit Consciousness in Coordinated Concert Motion Makes Changes Happen!

The debilitation and diatribe and dis-empowerment as to the combined human races spiritual creative potency has had its day, time now of enhanced and elevated energy to help create that oxygen...help create that oxygen, with pure intent willfully!

This IS why we are here!

[Earthlink]

Paul, I know you're only trying to help, and that I am, myself, in a bad way over this right now. I'm sorry, but I'm staying where I am. I have no illusions or confusion over exactly where I am right now, and under what conditions. Regarding that wikipedia article, I can't believe they'd go that far so as to create things like this either, but they do. Also, we know that it doesn't matter the topic, there exists a full range and spectrum of opinions on all topics under the sun. Confusion comes from not knowing who is truthful, however, there is a tried and true way of settling issues yourself and in your own mind, and that is by increasing the survey, right? We can't just accept what one person says about something to decide on where our own position is on it, we need a broader sample, and we need time to digest what each says of the same thing, and no matter, we shouldn't ever accept testimony from just 1 as sufficient grounds.

[Earthlink]

Eaglespirit you are absolutely right. If you look at the graph, it drops in the winter, and then ... miraculously ... by the will of Nature itself ... it tries to rise back to where it was every spring and summer, it really does. Those rates of O2 increase are NOT normal. it doesn't ever rise up like that, and it is only because it keeps dropping, and the sheer will of Nature, or the Universal Consciousness or something!!! that is making it rise at that rate.

[panopticon]

Australian climber Lincoln Hall survived without oxygen for an extended period (alone over night) near the summit of Mount Everest in 2006 and it's an incredible story of human endurance.

Alan Arnette has a really good article where he talks about the history of, and his experience with, oxygen supplement systems:
http://www.alanarnette.com/blog/2013/08/19/oxygen-on-everest-reviewing-the-options/

The systems from the 1920's were very bulky:

http://jap.physiology.org/content/jap/94/5/1702/F5.large.jpg

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/c6b93ffeed2f362e41fe4aa72/images/1a9c6545-ad85-4961-87e2-b65e35f4245b.jpg

If anyone's interested here's a really good article on the early system designs:
George I. Finch and his pioneering use of oxygen for climbing at extreme altitudes (http://jap.physiology.org/content/94/5/1702)

The butterflies have been in extraordinary numbers this Spring/Summer and we have a lot of grass hoppers that are supplementing the chooks/peacocks diets with protein. I'd say their numbers are due to the incredibly wet/mild Summer we've had providing good conditions for larvae etc.

The local Scripps oxygen measurements are still about the same as they were last year (increments in graph represents very small numerical ratio changes):

http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/imce/cgo_o2_plot.gif

So no change from when I was talking about it before (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72713-embrace-stupidity-this-isn-t-a-request-it-s-an-order.&p=849933&viewfull=1#post849933).

Still waiting for some actual evidence that there is a reason to be concerned about oxygen levels because all the experience I have (living in the bush surrounded by nature) tells me that while there have been measurable and noticeable changes climatically there has not been a noticeable change in biota (ie die-offs) due to oxygen levels dropping. There have been problems for some species due to changing variability in climatic conditions (in particular heat stress) but that is very well documented and I've not come across any reporting that this to do with small oxygen level decreases.

Global measurements of O2 levels indicate a 0.032% drop over the 17 years between 1992 & 2009. That's 320 particles in a million. So on current trends I'm more concerned about increased variability in Australia's climatic conditions and the possibility of a wet Winter (June/July/August) producing tinder for next years fire season.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

never saw it coming, never knew what hit them

that scale, provided to all of us by industry, where we now measure things in a way that tells you absolutely nothing about what you're looking at, except that their emissions, or byproduct waste contaminants that they produce and then don't want to safely dispose of, seems insignificant, and, this is for a reason . parts per million. what a joke. you don't need to know how many parts per million of oxygen there is in the atmosphere, you need to know what percentage of the atmosphere is oxygen. OSHA, occupational safety and health assc. have rules regarding what is a safe environment for workers to enter an area, and, these rules list it at 19.50%, below which workers will loose consciousness and or die, so, this is the format you need to use, ok? if you express findings as a percentage, two things will happen, one you will know if you're within legal parameters for such things, and two, everybody here will understand you.

so, please tell me your intents here are not to confuse people.

parts per million has been a great tool for industry to just about shut everybody up about so many things. i was very active in my career when this first showed up and they started using it. (and yes, i have voiced objection to this change from the beginning) it was already difficult enough for us to have enough people together, those times I have been involved in policy making in my career, who all were fluent enough on a scale of one to a hundred, and were good enough with math to do percentages fluently, but with these "pie in the sky" measurements that have numbers like 350 ppm, which is what Bill McKibben says is a safe level of CO2 in our atmosphere, everyone's immediate and first reaction is always "350 out of a million? that doesn't sound like very much at all ..." by the way, I think it's well over 500 now, but the very nature of the measurement scale itself is profoundly misleading. i remember all of the litterature surrounding this scale and i've read it all, at the beginning, when it first showed up, and the only reason it makes sense at all requires you to know what i know about it, and that is that most space, even solid objects, are comprised of empty space. we have all heard the observation that most of what is in this table here that is supporting my computer and coffee mug is in fact, when looked at closely, almost all empty space.

well, that's true of everything.

so what is the point of mentioning all of this empty space that is everywhere when i as a scientist am trying to measure something?

you know, i forget the actual number, but it is either 20,000 or 40,000. that is how many parts per million of water there is in water.

and, since switching over to this scale, i have since read peoples words using this scale, and there are now actually people out there with the opinion that there is even such a thing as 1 million parts per million.

i'm not kidding.

there are, i've read words similar to this several times now over the last 15 years or so.

just.remarkable

[Earthlink]

nothing to see here, carry on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsM5MxMO-JE

every winter we set a new record low O2 level, and, every year since beginning around the year 2000, in the winter, mass die offs have been seen around the globe involving all species types insect bird and fish. in the spring of 2014, last spring, the fish kept going belly up, all over the planet, right up until the end of May, another new record. birds fall dead right out of the sky by the thousands. well, they don't die in the sky, they fall to the ground, as a group inside the same dead zone, and are all dizzy and fumbling around on the ground for a bit, and then they die, but someone has already gone ahead and named the phenomenon "dead birds falling out of the sky" and these occurrences are so regular now world wide that the mainscream media thought, in 2011, that they should weigh in on it, so as not to look unknowing of all things. of course, they wrote it off. nothing to see here, move along, and they even mocked the tell tale sign of death by a lack of sufficient O2, the blue stains in the mouths, of a flock of white birds that went down in Italy.

tell me, what do you suppose I have to gain by telling you these things?

anyway, please watch this you tube video above.

[panopticon]

never saw it coming, never knew what hit them

Sorry? What are you talking about?
This statement makes no sense and I feel is designed to attempt to control through confusion.
Who never saw what coming and what hit them?


that scale, provided to all of us by industry, where we now measure things in a way that tells you absolutely nothing about what you're looking at, except that their emissions, or byproduct waste contaminants that they produce and then don't want to safely dispose of, seems insignificant, and, this is for a reason . parts per million. what a joke. you don't need to know how many parts per million of oxygen there is in the atmosphere, you need to know what percentage of the atmosphere is oxygen. OSHA, occupational safety and health assc. have rules regarding what is a safe environment for workers to enter an area, and, these rules list it at 19.50%, below which workers will loose consciousness and or die, so, this is the format you need to use, ok? if you express findings as a percentage, two things will happen, one you will know if you're within legal parameters for such things, and two, everybody here will understand you.
The reason I referenced 320 oxygen particles in 1,000,000 is to illustrate the amount of concern we should allocate to this subject.
The reduction in oxygen levels is very small in comparison to the system.
To use a percentage (as I referenced above) that is a 0.032% reduction between 2007 and 1992.
It is not a significant reduction.
In addition it is actually the exact reverse argument to the one your stating that is the reason ppm is used.
A change of 320ppm seems a lot more than a change of 0.032%.
Plus it allows for graphs with usable scales where a change of 0.032% could be graphically shown as something like:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=28964&d=1423977567

It's about data reference and analysis of numerically small datasets being portrayed in a way that is relevant. Unlike the above percentage graph which shows nothing at all.


so, please tell me your intents here are not to confuse people.
With pleasure.

My intent is to supply data and information to the discussion.
My intent is to assist people in recognising that the reduction in oxygen levels (in the atmosphere, the oceans are a completely different matter) is not something that should be keeping them awake at nights.
Your intent seems to be more to make statements without any evidence and then say there is a conspiracy to cover it all up.
Evidence would be nice (beyond your anocdotal references to butterfly's in your bioregion).


parts per million has been a great tool for industry to just about shut everybody up about so many things. i was very active in my career when this first showed up and they started using it. (and yes, i have voiced objection to this change from the beginning) it was already difficult enough for us to have enough people together, those times I have been involved in policy making in my career, who all were fluent enough on a scale of one to a hundred, and were good enough with math to do percentages fluently, but with these "pie in the sky" measurements that have numbers like 350 ppm, which is what Bill McKibben says is a safe level of CO2 in our atmosphere, everyone's immediate and first reaction is always "350 out of a million? that doesn't sound like very much at all ..." by the way, I think it's well over 500 now, but the very nature of the measurement scale itself is profoundly misleading. i remember all of the litterature surrounding this scale and i've read it all, at the beginning, when it first showed up, and the only reason it makes sense at all requires you to know what i know about it, and that is that most space, even solid objects, are comprised of empty space. we have all heard the observation that most of what is in this table here that is supporting my computer and coffee mug is in fact, when looked at closely, almost all empty space.
The discussion in this thread is about O2 levels.
Your reference to Bill McKibben is around his comments that 350ppm is the tipping point for CO2 in the atmosphere (BTW CO2 levels are approaching an average of 400ppm according to the Scripps average @Mauna Loa Observatory).
The ppm is used because otherwise we'd be talking about very small percentages which would have little point of reference.
As a scientist you know this so I don't understand your argument at all.


well, that's true of everything.

so what is the point of mentioning all of this empty space that is everywhere when i as a scientist am trying to measure something?

you know, i forget the actual number, but it is either 20,000 or 40,000. that is how many parts per million of water there is in water.
Sorry? Water has a ppm of 20,000 to 40,000 in water?
Water would have 1,000,000 ppm in water...
Maybe you are talking about the number of H2O molecules in the ocean, lake, river or bathtub but you've not made any sense with the above and no context.
No, there is no example of 1,000,000 ppm unless (as you've done above) there is no context to measure against.
Really no idea why you'd make a statement like that other than to try and confuse.


and, since switching over to this scale, i have since read peoples words using this scale, and there are now actually people out there with the opinion that there is even such a thing as 1 million parts per million.

i'm not kidding.
I've not come across any scientist saying that there is 1,000,000 ppm of anything as it is a contextual framework for reference to trace elements. It's like saying that water is 1,000,000 ppm water. It makes no sense outside of a joke.


there are, i've read words similar to this several times now over the last 15 years or so.

just.remarkable
Right, so please give references and provide some sort of data to back up your claims (not emotive statements about butterfly's in your area because that is not reflected in other bio-zones/regions -- for example mine in Tasmania).
In the past you referenced the Keeling O2 graph (as the saw tooth graph) and, as I've mentioned before, this represents a very small reduction in O2 levels globally.

So, once again, can you provide some references and data sources please.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

nothing to see here, carry on

SsM5MxMO-JE

every winter we set a new record low O2 level, and, every year since beginning around the year 2000, in the winter, mass die offs have been seen around the globe involving all species types insect bird and fish. in the spring of 2014, last spring, the fish kept going belly up, all over the planet, right up until the end of May, another new record. birds fall dead right out of the sky by the thousands. well, they don't die in the sky, they fall to the ground, as a group inside the same dead zone, and are all dizzy and fumbling around on the ground for a bit, and then they die, but someone has already gone ahead and named the phenomenon "dead birds falling out of the sky" and these occurrences are so regular now world wide that the mainscream media thought, in 2011, that they should weigh in on it, so as not to look unknowing of all things. of course, they wrote it off. nothing to see here, move along, and they even mocked the tell tale sign of death by a lack of sufficient O2, the blue stains in the mouths, of a flock of white birds that went down in Italy.

tell me, what do you suppose I have to gain by telling you these things?

anyway, please watch this you tube video above.

I have no idea why you keep posting this video.

Have you watched it?

What does Turtle doves dieing from over eating sunflower seeds have to do with atmospheric oxygen levels?

What does crabs dieing in England from a period of unusually cold ocean current in that area have to do with atmospheric oxygen levels?

What do fish in New Zealand possibly being dumped off shore by commercial fishers/poachers or maybe a split fishing net have to do with atmospheric oxygen levels? (BTW fish dumping is a major problem in NZ with average estimates of around 140,000 tonne [35 million fish] are being dumped each year so 1000 fish washing ashore is not a huge surprise)

Surely as a scientist you know that "correlation does not mean causation"?

I'm very confused how you are not seeing these points.

Could it be you've got a form of tunnel vision and are trying to prove your point rather than investigate alternative explanations?

Anyway, here's some more info for you:

###

An investigation into fish dumping (http://www.3news.co.nz/tvshows/campbelllive/an-investigation-into-fish-dumping-2013091020)

At the beginning of the year, many thousands of snapper washed up on beaches in Coromandel.

They were almost certainly dumped.

Last year, a Korean fishing boat operating in our water, was heavily fined for dumping roughly 400 tonnes of fish.

And that's nothing.

Fish dumping is such a major problem it's a national disgrace.

Tonight, an investigation into fish dumping.

Watch the video for the full report.

###

Hundreds Of Birds Fall From Sky Dead In Italy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/10/hundreds-of-dead-birds-fo_n_806660.html)

ROME — Hundreds of dead turtle doves have been found in a town in northern Italy.

An Italian association for bird protection said Saturday that over 700 dead birds have been picked up since Jan. 1 from the streets of Faenza, about 30 miles (50 kilometers) southeast of Bologna.

Scientists were carrying out tests to figure out why the birds died but Nadia Caselli of the bird association said they appear to have overeaten sunflower seeds, which damage their livers and kidneys. The seeds are mostly waste from a nearby oil factory.

Unlike stronger birds like pigeons, turtle doves are also debilitated by cold weather.

The mass deaths follow similar cases recently in the United States and Sweden.

###

I hope this was useful to someone.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

.... soooo those birds all ate too many sunflower seeds ... all of them, at least, all the ones that died at the same time ... and then, also at the same time, the eating of too many sunflower seeds killed them all ... at the same time ...

ok, what a dummy r i ... you're right, my bad, again, so sorry.

[Nick Matkin]

I hope this was useful to someone.

-- Pan

Yes. Thank you for injecting some clarity into the thread - some of the posts are very confused!

Your figures regarding the oxygen levels certainly more or less support my post 25 above. It's surely silly to suggest that falling oxygen levels cause very local 'pockets' of particular animals to die, but nothing else in that region.

The air is in constant motion. How could oxygen be depleted in a very localised region? How would it affect only one type of animal? If such events were common, I'm pretty sure they would be noted by people with respiratory illnesses!

A lot of pseudo science gets picked up, figures and graphs misinterpreted, possibly maliciously. This only serves to spread alarm amongst those who are genuinely concerned about the changes they see around them, but not sufficiently well informed to correctly interpret the data.

No doubt many of these types of posts are innocently written. But occasionally it looks like they a mischievous attempt to sow disquiet - for some reason.

Nick

[panopticon]

.... soooo those birds all ate too many sunflower seeds ... all of them, at least, all the ones that died at the same time ... and then, also at the same time, the eating of too many sunflower seeds killed them all ... at the same time ...

ok, what a dummy r i ... you're right, my bad, again, so sorry.

G'day Earthlink,

No worries.

Sometimes when someone stares at something for a long time they can see patterns where there are none.

When that happens it can be useful to get another set of eyes to look at it.

I really am glad to have helped.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

I hope this was useful to someone.

-- Pan

Yes. Thank you for injecting some clarity into the thread - some of the posts are very confused!

Your figures regarding the oxygen levels certainly more or less support my post 25 above. It's surely silly to suggest that falling oxygen levels cause very local 'pockets' of particular animals to die, but nothing else in that region.

The air is in constant motion. How could oxygen be depleted in a very localised region? How would it affect only on type of animal? If such events were common, I'm pretty sure they would be noted by people with respiratory illnesses!

A lot of pseudo science gets picked up, figures and graphs misinterpreted, possibly maliciously. This only serves to spread alarm amongst those who are genuinely concerned about the changes they see around them, but not sufficiently well informed to correctly interpret the data.

No doubt many of these types of posts are innocently written. But occasionally it looks like they a mischievous attempt to sow disquiet - for some reason.

Nick

G'day Nick,

I agree that there are a number of problems with the idea of localised pockets of low oxygen causing hypoxia at or near sea level.

As I said above, sometimes looking at a data set for a long time can produce patterns that others don't see.


Sometimes there is a pattern and that is when a breakthrough happens.
Sometimes there isn't one but we think there is (for examples see Apophenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia) or Overfitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting)).

As you'd know, that's why its important to get verification for hypothesis in the sciences (via peer review for example).

If a person is able to see that there is a problem with their hypothesis and identify where their error occurred we are all better for the effort.

I agree sometimes there is mischief at the heart of some claims but I don't think that's often the case at Avalon.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

"We will have all of the species in the Animal Kingdom, or we will have the fossil industrial complex, but we will not have both."

In my mind it is too late now to try to find flaws in what has already occurred. Einstein spent the last 15 years of his life talking more about this than any other one thing he ever talked about, but of course everything he ever said about this has since been swept under the carpet.

It is a sad reality to think that we live in a world where people lie, but all I can say about that is "weapons of mass deception" Not only do people in fact lie, all the time now, they also spend inordinate amounts of money and time doing just that.

anyway, yes, in a global system such as our atmosphere is, if the O2 level is declining, then, dead zones are exactly what we would expect to see. they started around the year 2000 and have been increasing in both severity and frequency ever since, with new record low O2 levels being reached every winter. I would even venture to say that what is happening in the atmosphere and with the dead zones would be textbook predictability.

air stratifies and layers itself all the time. warmer air rises over colder air, and colder air sinks into and below warmer air. and so does the O2 in the air. the O2 is most concentrated at sea level, and pockets of air up in the mountains has less O2 in it than the air at sea level. sometimes the air is calm and has time to settle, and so the sea level air has more and in time the higher up air mass has less.

any time a mass air system forms and moves, there are times when all of the air mass over the mountains will be pushed out and moved down, replaced by the air behind it, and when masses of air traverse elevation like this what happens originally is that an air mass that had stratified and was sitting with an O2 level of say 19.00% (too low for any species to survive in) moves down the mountain and into lower elevations as a large air mass moving all at once, we will see, with predictability, what happens.

[Nick Matkin]

[...]
anyway, yes, in a global system such as our atmosphere is, if the O2 level is declining, then, dead zones are exactly what we would expect to see. they started around the year 2000 and have been increasing in both severity and frequency ever since, with new record low O2 levels being reached every winter. I would even venture to say that what is happening in the atmosphere and with the dead zones would be textbook predictability.

air stratifies and layers itself all the time. warmer air rises over colder air, and colder air sinks into and below warmer air. and so does the O2 in the air. the O2 is most concentrated at sea level, and pockets of air up in the mountains has less O2 in it than the air at sea level. sometimes the air is calm and has time to settle, and so the sea level air has more and in time the higher up air mass has less.

any time a mass air system forms and moves, there are times when all of the air mass over the mountains will be pushed out and moved down, replaced by the air behind it, and when masses of air traverse elevation like this what happens originally is that an air mass that had stratified and was sitting with an O2 level of say 19.00% (too low for any species to survive in) moves down the mountain and into lower elevations as a large air mass moving all at once, we will see, with predictability, what happens.


Air at altitude has less oxygen simply because the density is less. As a percentage it's the same as at sea level. So if the air density is lower then obviously the numbers of oxygen molecules is lower, so that's why oxygen is needed for explorers at very high altitudes. Where do you get this confused information from?

There's no dispute here that still air stratifies, but that's due to temperature differences not varying oxygen content. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with basic meteorology and atmospheric physics. Then explain to us how pockets of oxygen-depleted air can form. Or just supply some references for your claims...?

You said earlier you are an electrical engineer, in which case you shouldn't have any problems understating basic atmospheric science.


Nick

[Earthlink]

Nick, everything I know and love is either already dead or is about to die. These last 15 years here on Earth have been hellish to all of those people on Earth who have high levels of empathy.

So, if you want to do something regarding this, then yes, I agree that increasing the scope of what we know is always a beneficial endeavour for all.

Find out for us, if you could, why everything is dying.

[Nick Matkin]

Well, you haven't answered any questions have you?

Not 'everything' is dying. It's winter in the northern hemisphere so my garden looks a bit dead, but I'm guessing this isn't what you mean. But if you think everything is dying where you are, it's not due to oxygen depletion. How about considering pollution?

Perhaps my not noticing dead and dying things all around me is simply due to my lack of empathy.

Nick

[Earthlink]

It is winter where I am too. So, I predict that this spring and summer, you're going to go out into the woods somewhere, anywhere you had ever been as a child, and you're going to go there looking for insects and birds. I also predict that because empathy is a two way street, and all can tune into it if they want to, that you may yourself be overwashed with empathy while you are in the forest and realize that it is more like a ghost town these days than a living multiverse.

it is powerful, and could very likely bring you to your knees, but don't be afraid of it, it is Nature, and don't go there because of what anyone else said, go there for yourself because you would like to know for yourself.

ummm, errr, and yeah: "How about considering pollution?"

... i think i am considering pollution here, in fact, it is all i am considering here, as, oxides are pollution, and the more of them there are, the fewer O2's there are ...

[Jake]

Earthlink,, do you remember last year when you insisted that the grasshoppers are all dead and/ or dying??? There were then, and are now,, still grasshoppers... I see them and smile, knowing that you were completely, and 100 percent incorrect..

I do thank you for the alert, however your track record for crying wolf is not so good...

Breathe, breathe in the air.
Dont be afraid to care....

The sky is not falling. And the alarmism doesn't really help things in my most humble opinion..

Jake..

[Earthlink]

Jake, no disrespect meant here, but I would certainly hope that we do not find ourselves in a position where there needs to be no life left before we finally acknowledge that some things are not ok to proceed with, but alas, this system we live in and the relationship it has with "natural resources" and profit is not going to allow anything but that.

anyway, i'm not basing anything i say on theory, it is only based on the last 15 years of what i see with my own eyes. in 2013 I went to the Big Gig, in Vermont, held at a very sparsely populated part of the country, and for the first time ever, people slept on the stage, with just a blanket, and Christa slept on the couch behind the stage with just a blanket too. You could never do that before unless you were too drunk and then passed out, but even then, the insect bites would eventually wake you up. from 2013 to today, this is still the case there, and i am in contact with the owner of that land, and, the insect and bird populations that used to be there have not returned. that is just one location that is a few hundred miles from here. another location i've seen recently where the insect and bird populations are noticeably absent was at the great wall north of beijing. our tour guide, a chinese man who speaks good english, said the same thing about his back yard. i also met another engineer, from a small town in switzerland while i was in beijing and his eye witness account of his home is the same: most of the insects and birds are gone where he lives too.

i don't think where i live is an anomaly, in fact if that was the case, that only in my back yard are all these species absent, then i would be looking in my own neighbourhood for a source of some kind of poison or something, to explain why i live in an area that looks and sounds like this now when i'm outside in the summertime.

however, all i have ever got from colleagues over the last many years now, regardless of location, some are in brazil, some in new zealand, VT, CT MA and NH, and of course here in ontario, is more of the same reporting.

in any event, if it was ever even remotely possible that we could change the composition of the sky itself through the burning of fossil fuels at a rate of 100 million barrels per day, we should have never agreed to walk down this path. people seem to behave completely in disregard for reality when it comes to this issue, in my opinion, and have a sort of non-challant belief that burning 100 million barrels of oil per day has been going on forever and that it is both natural and harmless.

and at the same time, we have had calculators and measurement devices to either confirm or deny this. anyone can do a bar napkin calculation and find out almost exactly how much O2 is required to have 100 million barrels of oil experience the rapid oxidization known as fire, and what the effect of first removing hundreds of cubic miles of O2 from the sky daily will be, and then what the effect of then replacing these hundreds of cubic miles of O2 with billions of tons of oxides, will be.

at times i'm actually thwarted by how simple this really should be for us, would we were not to complicate it beyond reason. in my mind, it is simple math. 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 - 1 = 0

should we approach this with caution, or throw caution to the wind?

"it's windy all the time now" my mother says. "it was never like this before"

another possible bar napkin calculation that is pretty straight forward and easy enough for anyone so inclined, would be to calculate, by volume, how much our atmosphere has had to increase to accommodate these oxides. if you look at our atmosphere as a balloon, which it is since it is a closed system surrounding our planet and our planet is in the vacuum known as space, these hot gasses need to occupy space themselves, and they have to go somewhere. effectively we are taking 100 million barrels of otherwise cold or room temperature liquids, per day, turning them into extremely hot gasses known as oxides, (all oxides are poison to the animal kingdom) and these are then all released into this balloon we call our sky. what is the effect of having hundreds of trillions of tons of these gasses now in this balloon with us, with billions of tons more of them added daily?

again, in my mind it is simple math, and it is going to crash the entire biosphere.

[Earthlink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLpkXtM-VI8

and, uh, so far on this i have been trying to stick to physics and the known material world. i haven't really said anything about spirituality here, and it has been for a reason. i don't want my own personal bias to interfere with simple knowledge, but the truth is there is much spirituality tied up in this for me. i've been very empathic all my life, and seriously, these last 15 winters i have been so moved by this that many times now per winter all i can do is cry, and say goodbye to so many things. i find i can not ignore the very real empathy of what is happening, and it is here that i find more evidence that this is really happening, however this evidence is all emotion, and only felt.

none would believe or follow this, yet for me it is all real. i am the storm and i am the wonder, yet telling you of the dreams i have would only discredit me in your eyes, so i do not.

[Nick Matkin]

Earthlink, could you please present some clear evidence rather than blather and waffle about the falling atmospheric oxygen level. You have already been asked for this to support your case.

Please include links to references to the effects to which you claim this dramatically falling oxygen is causing. Presumably you didn't just make it up, so perhaps you'd like to share this data? Some verifiable figures would be good too.

Please, some plain facts that we can all understand, in plain English.

To a man of science (an electrical engineer no less as you stated in post #26) this should not be a problem, although you haven't managed it yet.

Thank you. We await impatiently...

[Earthlink]

what? the graphs from the american samoa observatory, cape grimm, and other atmospheric monitoring stations, are all already shown above. they all display the same readings, the saw tooth decline of the O2 level in our atmosphere.

that's it.

i'm not making any assumptions or observations that aren't about this visual representation of measured O2 concentrations.

i would personally like to see that graph as a flat line, and, the O2 concentration stay in the same place. nothing more, nothing less.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

and about the species, i would like nothing more than you to go into the forest yourself. nothing more, nothing less. i myself have done that, in many forests even on different continents, and what i'm reporting here are my observations.

[Earthlink]

This is another good visual aid. it lets us see all of the earth, air, and water each as their own sphere. and no, i do not think it a good idea to run billions of internal combustion engines every day inside our air. in fact i think it to be a horrible idea and i believe what i am watching outside is the literal proof as to why this is not a good idea.

[Nick Matkin]

You mean a graph like this for example?


From 1991 through 2005, the O2 content of the atmosphere has dropped by 0.00248% (248 per meg) of its initial amount. The rate is mostly explained by the global combustion of fossil-fuel over this period, although the actual rate is slightly smaller than expected from fossil-fuel alone. The difference evidently reflects a global imbalance between photosynthesis and respiration.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/o2/img/img_o2_n2_flask_data_plot.gif


I refer you to the bold text in the above quote, the bit where it states that in 14 years the the oxygen content has fallen by 0.00248 per cent - a very, very tiny amount.

All you have to do is extrapolate that to a level where we'll all suffocate. See, thousands of years - even in the vanishingly unlikely event that oxygen is never again replenished. (BTW, it's showing the sawtooth ratio of O2 to N2, not sawtooth of dropping O2.)

No one said burning huge amounts of fossil fuels is a good idea, but spreading ideas based on misinterpreted data (and some may say spreading fear porn) is not a constructive thing to do.

Like Paul and pan have already stated, you need to understand the scales on the axes and other technical data to accurately appreciate what it's telling you...

[Earthlink]

And here is another one.

I personally do not care what any other Human Being says about this. In this world today you WILL find various opinions on the same thing. One will say it is white, another will clearly state that what you were looking at was in fact black but only appeared white.

What do you do and how do you decide when two account of the same thing are different?

So, I am going with the originals. Textbooks from the early 1900's have listed our O2 level at 24 or 23 percent. Going into the 60's they say 23 or 22. today they say 21 and some newer articles written lately have it at 20 now.

those are the only numbers that matter to me regarding this. that and the fact that these graphs in their side notes clearly say in their own definitions that they are measuring the oxygen level, and, that looks a lot to me like a 45 degree slope downwards, indicating a drop substantial enough for me to take notice of.

i'm not going by what another Human Being has said about it, i can not. they have led me down the wrong path too many times in the past for me to accept anything they say as fact any more.

it looks like a substantial fall rate, when i look at it, oxygen sensors used in mining today (expressed only as a percentage) are reading it, and it is going down over time, and the historical records show a move from 25% to under 20% today. this movement is one way and it has never reached its' own starting point since it began its' descent.

i don't know how someone managed to convince you that this can also be expressed as a 0.00248% drop, and one that can continue for thousands of years too, but it does seem to me that whomever authored these views made mistakes.

oh, and the last empirical document in my case, if you want to call it that, i guess i am making a case for this, is of course the occupational safety guidelines, where Human Beings ought not go places below 19.50% O2 concentrations.

[Earthlink]

I also started the Oxygen Enrichment Program in 2010, to try to get this to stop falling and move it back to at least 24%, but i'm not making it fast enough. there are also other people i know in the world aware of this who are all also trying to get us traction on this, but it's slow, especially in a climate where there are 50 shades of truth. so frustrating. the other electrical engineer i met from the swiss region is going to be contacting his local electric grid to see if they can start contributing from that area, and i went to beijing for 3 months just recently to try to get some production going there as well.

this is what the universal consciousness has me doing now full time i guess. it just took over. i've worked all my life and have some things, but it's not enough with just me. if any want to help with this, that would be kindly appreciated.

[panopticon]

OK, just to be clear...

The "saw tooth curve" is called the Ralph Keeling Curve (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/the-keeling-curves) and is from measurements taken by Scripps observatories around the world (Ralph Keeling (http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/personnel/ralph_keeling.html) is the son of Charles Keeling who created the Keeling Curve which represents measurements of CO2 increases).

6WFCoJgt71A

Ralph Keeling also shows us that the reason Oxygen cycles in the atmosphere is because of a combination of seasonal variations in vegetative CO2 uptake (ie more in Spring, less in Winter), temperature variations in the top level of the ocean (100 metres) varies seasonally which in turn effects O2 uptake as it does plankton etc in that upper zone (Keeling 1992: 724).

These are some of the same reason that CO2 levels alter with seasons.

It really is very intuitive and has nothing to do with what Earthlink refers to as 'the will of Nature itself' (no matter the rhetorical flourishes)...

Ralph Keeling's 1992 paper is viewable here.
http://132.239.121.69/publications/ralph/3_Seasonal.pdf

-- Pan

[panopticon]

So here's a but more information on hypoxia at high elevations and how Tibetans have evolved to live there.

BTW there was a really good paper I read last year that compared Tibetan & Han DNA for evidence that Tibetan's evolved to suit their environment. The researchers found that there is evidence that through natural selection a gene associated with Denisovan ancestors is likely what allows Tibetan's to live in low-oxygen environs (paper's here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043035)).

###

How do Tibetans avoid altitude sickness? (http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/climbing/tibet-altitude-sickness.htm)
by Josh Clark

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/tibetan-altitude-sickness-1-a.jpg

How do Tibetans avoid altitude sickness?

A trip to Tibet can be a transcendent experience. The Dalai Lama's homeland is known as the "roof of the world" -- a high, windswept place with roaring rivers, snowcapped peaks and pastoral villages. But a Tibetan visit can also mean a nasty case of altitude sickness for people who are used to the atmospheric pressure found at lower elevations. This illness, also known as hypoxia, is the result of a lack of oxygen to the tissue in the body. Hypoxia's symptoms include nausea, vomiting, lethargy, confusion and breathlessness. It can also be fatal.

A person struck by altitude sickness may wonder how the people of Tibet can live at such high altitudes without suffering hypoxia themselves. Researchers have studied Tibetans to find out why they can live in settlements averaging 16,000 feet above sea level. (By contrast, the city of Denver, Colo. is 5,280 feet above sea level.) As it turns out, Tibetans actually are hypoxic; however, their bodies have simply developed a unique way of dealing with the lower atmospheric pressure. But how? To understand the answer to that question, we first have to understand why people shouldn't be able to thrive at such high elevations.

The human body's oxygen-distribution system has developed over hundreds of millions of years. You inhale oxygen into your lungs. Oxygen is then transferred to blood, which then distributes the oxygen via hemoglobin, the part of your blood that carries oxygen.

There is about the same amount of oxygen (around 21 percent) in the air regardless of elevation, but because of a lack of atmospheric pressure at high altitudes, it's harder for the human lungs to absorb. Our cardiopulmonary system (the heart and lungs working together to get oxygen to the body) has to work overtime at high altitudes to get the oxygen we need. This leads to hypertension -- or high blood pressure.

Anthropologists believe the reason people have trouble coping with the thin air at high altitudes is because the human body developed at or near sea level. The Tibetans are an anomaly: They shouldn't have been able to thrive on the roof of the world for thousands of years. So how did they adapt?

http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/potala-palace-landmark-2.jpg

Biodiversity at High Elevations

In 2005, a group of researchers from Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, traveled to Tibet to test a hypothesis of why the Tibetan people aren't afflicted with high blood pressure and other maladies resulting from living at such high altitudes. They found the answer within the Tibetans' breath.

The researchers discovered that Tibetans exhale much less nitric oxide (NO) than a control group living at sea level did. What's more, the Tibetans' lungs transferred twice the amount of nitric oxide from their lung walls into their bloodstreams than their sea-level-dwelling counterparts'. Nitric oxide is believed to aid in the expansion of blood vessels. Blood flows more easily, which allows the heart to work at a normal pace, due to the decrease in blood pressure from vessel expansion.

That means that the Tibetans' hearts can deliver more of the lower ambient oxygen available in the air to their bodies. With the dilated blood vessels, Tibetans can achieve this with less effort than a person at the same altitude whose cardiopulmonary system is used to near-sea level pressure.

This represents a strong example of humans evolving to adapt to their environment. Humans living at high altitudes have adapted to the unusual atmospheric conditions, and it stands to reason that this would be found throughout the world wherever humans live at elevations similar to those in Tibet. Except it isn't.

The first study of people living at high altitudes came in 1890, when Frenchman Francois Viault studied the red blood cell count of people living in the Andes Mountains of South America. Red blood cells carry hemoglobin, the part of the blood that carries oxygen. So Viault theorized that the Andean people would have a high red blood cell count. He was right. Andeans developed a process that compensates for the lack of available oxygen in the thin mountain air. But this trait -- or phenotype -- is not found in Tibetans. Conversely, Tibetans' higher use of nitric oxide isn't found in Andeans.

A third group, the people of the Ethiopian highlands, don't have either of these traits. In fact, the Ethiopian highlanders don't appear to have any special traits to compensate for life at higher altitudes. The characteristics of their cardiopulmonary systems -- like oxygen saturation and hemoglobin count -- are virtually identical to those found in people living at sea level.

It's possible that the Ethiopians do possess a trait that has yet to be discovered; the highlanders have only been studied once, while the Andeans have been studied for more than a century and the Tibetans for decades. But the differences that have been found between Andeans, Ethiopians and Tibetans represent human biodiversity. This is significant, because it is through diversity that a species can thrive on Earth.

Source (http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/climbing/tibet-altitude-sickness.htm)

###

I hope this has been helpful.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

In relation to the repetition of the 19.5% oxygen level figures.

It is an industry standard for working in enclosed/confined spaces (notably when welding).

There's a really good article on it in relation to OH&S here.
http://ehstoday.com/safety/confined-spaces/ehs_imp_32784

In addition there is also a really good article on it here.
http://ehstoday.com/fire_emergencyresponse/ehs_imp_77598

In relation to hypoxia in confined/enclosed places the level of oxygen (as a percentage) required for death is below 10% (in particular below 8%).

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=28970&d=1424064525
Source (http://www.raesystems.com.au/sites/default/files/downloads/FeedsEnclosure-AP-206_Confined_Space.pdf)

If there is any evidence that oxygen levels have fallen below the 10% figure in a non-confined place (eg in the open area of a large city) then I'd love to see it.

If not, then this discussion is simply howling at the Moon.

-- Pan

[Nick Matkin]

I also started the Oxygen Enrichment Program in 2010, to try to get this to stop falling and move it back to at least 24%, but i'm not making it fast enough.

Good luck with that - it should keep you busy.

How exactly are you generating many cubic kM of oxygen in order to make an impact? I guess you'd need a number of very large and power-hungry facilities to do that.

Or maybe you're just using plankton and trees?

Pan: thanks for your definitive input which has surely now finally clarified Earthlink's misconceptions and put the matter to rest...

Nick

[panopticon]

[...]
anyway, yes, in a global system such as our atmosphere is, if the O2 level is declining, then, dead zones are exactly what we would expect to see. they started around the year 2000 and have been increasing in both severity and frequency ever since, with new record low O2 levels being reached every winter. I would even venture to say that what is happening in the atmosphere and with the dead zones would be textbook predictability.

air stratifies and layers itself all the time. warmer air rises over colder air, and colder air sinks into and below warmer air. and so does the O2 in the air. the O2 is most concentrated at sea level, and pockets of air up in the mountains has less O2 in it than the air at sea level. sometimes the air is calm and has time to settle, and so the sea level air has more and in time the higher up air mass has less.

any time a mass air system forms and moves, there are times when all of the air mass over the mountains will be pushed out and moved down, replaced by the air behind it, and when masses of air traverse elevation like this what happens originally is that an air mass that had stratified and was sitting with an O2 level of say 19.00% (too low for any species to survive in) moves down the mountain and into lower elevations as a large air mass moving all at once, we will see, with predictability, what happens.


Air at altitude has less oxygen simply because the density is less. As a percentage it's the same as at sea level. So if the air density is lower then obviously the numbers of oxygen molecules is lower, so that's why oxygen is needed for explorers at very high altitudes. Where do you get this confused information from?

There's no dispute here that still air stratifies, but that's due to temperature differences not varying oxygen content. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with basic meteorology and atmospheric physics. Then explain to us how pockets of oxygen-depleted air can form. Or just supply some references for your claims...?

You said earlier you are an electrical engineer, in which case you shouldn't have any problems understating basic atmospheric science.


Nick

Exactly.

Good site that shows comparative Oxygen levels at varied altitudes:
http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

Another explanation of Altitude/Oxygen levels and air pressure:

Question:
Does altitude change the percentage of oxygen in the air?

Answer:
The percentage of oxygen is the same at sea level as it is at high altitudes, which is roughly 21 percent. However, because air molecules at high altitudes are more dispersed, each breath delivers less oxygen to the body. A breath at 12,000 feet (3,657.6 m), delivers 40 percent less oxygen to the body than it does at sea level. At 18,000, feet, a breath takes in 50 percent less oxygen. As a result of this difference, you should expect to feel short of breath during and shortly after physical activities, such as mountain climbing or biking,at higher altitudes.
Source (http://www.sharecare.com/health/air-quality/altitude-change-percentage-oxygen-air)

[panopticon]

I also started the Oxygen Enrichment Program in 2010, to try to get this to stop falling and move it back to at least 24%, but i'm not making it fast enough.

Good luck with that - it should keep you busy.

How exactly are you generating many cubic kM of oxygen in order to make an impact? I guess you'd need a number of very large and power-hungry facilities to do that.

Or maybe you're just using plankton and trees?

Pan: thanks for your definitive input which has surely now finally clarified Earthlink's misconceptions and put the matter to rest...

Nick

I hesitate to ask, but what is the 'Oxygen Enrichment Program'?

@Nick: Right back at you bloke. I'm just waiting for some actual evidence.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

like I said earlier, every opinion is expressed. legitimate and bogus alike. in the first video you posted today up there panopticon he warns you at the end that trees and plants are not enough, and he tells you what he fears for Humanity, and the guy before him said that the plants are growing a little more and taking up a little more, well, that's what I meant by Nature reacting to this, because i agree with them that the O2 level doesn't normally rise like that.

and further, thanks for trying to help me understand what i am talking about, however, i don't need any help understanding what is happening, i only need help producing O2 in large quantities at this point. if you would like to help in the production of O2 then you are welcome to help. i know how to calibrate and use an oxygen sensor and my eyes and ears are working fine.

also, if i show you where some of the information you presented above is completely fictional and made up, will you stop telling me what i know to be true is false?

will you?

if i actually point out that you have brought doctored, false and completely bogus information to this discussion, will you then please stop?

[panopticon]

And here is another one.

I personally do not care what any other Human Being says about this. In this world today you WILL find various opinions on the same thing. One will say it is white, another will clearly state that what you were looking at was in fact black but only appeared white.

What do you do and how do you decide when two account of the same thing are different?

So, I am going with the originals. Textbooks from the early 1900's have listed our O2 level at 24 or 23 percent. Going into the 60's they say 23 or 22. today they say 21 and some newer articles written lately have it at 20 now.

those are the only numbers that matter to me regarding this. that and the fact that these graphs in their side notes clearly say in their own definitions that they are measuring the oxygen level, and, that looks a lot to me like a 45 degree slope downwards, indicating a drop substantial enough for me to take notice of.

i'm not going by what another Human Being has said about it, i can not. they have led me down the wrong path too many times in the past for me to accept anything they say as fact any more.

it looks like a substantial fall rate, when i look at it, oxygen sensors used in mining today (expressed only as a percentage) are reading it, and it is going down over time, and the historical records show a move from 25% to under 20% today. this movement is one way and it has never reached its' own starting point since it began its' descent.

i don't know how someone managed to convince you that this can also be expressed as a 0.00248% drop, and one that can continue for thousands of years too, but it does seem to me that whomever authored these views made mistakes.

oh, and the last empirical document in my case, if you want to call it that, i guess i am making a case for this, is of course the occupational safety guidelines, where Human Beings ought not go places below 19.50% O2 concentrations.

OK. I like to be thorough and sure of my points so needed to investigate the claim:

Textbooks from the early 1900's have listed our O2 level at 24 or 23 percent. Going into the 60's they say 23 or 22. today they say 21 and some newer articles written lately have it at 20 now.

I've spent a pleasant evening going through old journal articles on atmospheric composition from the pre-1950's.

I will only reference 2 because they all said the same thing and many of them were behind pay walls.


Benedict, FG. 1912. 'The composition of the atmosphere with special reference to its oxygen content' (here (https://archive.org/details/compositionofatm00beneuoft))
Grimminger, G. 1948. 'Analysis of temperature, pressure, and density of the atmosphere extending to extreme altitudes' (here (http://www.governmentattic.org/RAND/RA-15023.pdf))


The Benedict text contains a large methodology section and then details the numerous samples and average:


The average result of 212 analyses showed 0.031 per cent of carbon dioxide and 20.938 per cent of oxygen (Benedict 1912: 114).

So 1912 produced an atmospheric compositional average of 20.938% oxygen & 0.031% carbon dioxide (as compared to 0.039% carbon dioxide now).

Grimminger (1948) came to a similar conclusion with an oxygen level of 20.95% quoted (1948: 16).

I have not come across anything in all my research that varies from the ~21% oxygen level in the troposphere no matter when in the 20th Century it was written.

Please provide photocopies or direct links to text books from the early 1900's and 1960's that have been referenced above with the figures that are substantially higher (ie 22,23,24 & 25).

-- Pan

[panopticon]

like I said earlier, every opinion is expressed. legitimate and bogus alike. in the first video you posted today up there panopticon he warns you at the end that trees and plants are not enough, and he tells you what he fears for Humanity, and the guy before him said that the plants are growing a little more and taking up a little more, well, that's what I meant by Nature reacting to this, because i agree with them that the O2 level doesn't normally rise like that.

and further, thanks for trying to help me understand what i am talking about, however, i don't need any help understanding what is happening, i only need help producing O2 in large quantities at this point. if you would like to help in the production of O2 then you are welcome to help. i know how to calibrate and use an oxygen sensor and my eyes and ears are working fine.

also, if i show you where some of the information you presented above is completely fictional and made up, will you stop telling me what i know to be true is false?

will you?

if i actually point out that you have brought doctored, false and completely bogus information to this discussion, will you then please stop?

Please provide some evidence of something beyond anecdotes about butterfly's in your bio-region.

That would be greatly appreciated

I'm off to bed now because, as I mentioned, I've spent a lovely night going through old journal articles and books from the early 20th Century.

I await your evidence.

BTW what is this 'Oxygen Enrichment Program' you mentioned starting and how does it operate?

I look forward to reading about it tomorrow evening :)

-- Pan

Oh, just as a thought. Maybe you've been mixing up (pardon the horrible pun) the percentage of Oxygen in the atmosphere by volume (~20.94%) with the amount of Oxygen in the atmosphere by mass (from memory around 23%).

Might explain the difference for you.

[Earthlink]

Pan, i understand why industry are so prolific in their production of bogus scientific documents, and i also know that for the most part, the effects from these bogus reports will not be felt in the short term, however, in this case, regarding entry into confined spaces, the effects of bogus documentation on it will be felt immediately and the effects of it will be deadly. This is from the article referenced below, a guy who teaches safety courses on entry into confined spaces wrote it, because people have died going into spaces they though were safe at 20.1% oxygen levels.

is there some way you could delete that post you made above where they assert that entry into a space any lower than 19.5% oxygen, but only if other gasses are NOT present and the reading has been corrected for humidity and elevation, is acceptable?

this is an exert from the safety course teachers article:

"For example, in the first case I worked on as an expert witness, the entry supervisor for a contract tank cleaning firm tested the atmosphere in a space and found it contained 20.1 percent oxygen. When I saw that number, I was concerned, very concerned. The supervisor wasn't; in fact, he was oblivious to the warning it provided. Instead, he testified with great confidence that he knew that 19.5 percent was "safe." After all, that's what he'd been taught at the confined space course he took at the state fire school.

The next day, three people including the plant safety director died when they entered an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. This, by the way, was the first of three cases I've worked on where one of the people who was killed was the on-site safety officer, "

essentially the author of this article explains why 19.5% or even higher, is NOT always safe.

in fact, someone should call the police on whomever made that document you posted above. that's not even funny, suggesting entry into space that is anywhere from 19% down to 4%, that's an immediate death sentence to anyone who heeds it.

http://ehstoday.com/safety/confined-spaces/ehs_imp_32784

[Nick Matkin]

I hesitate to ask, but what is the 'Oxygen Enrichment Program'?

"No answer" was the reply...

:rolleyes:

[panopticon]

Pan, i understand why industry are so prolific in their production of bogus scientific documents, and i also know that for the most part, the effects from these bogus reports will not be felt in the short term, however, in this case, regarding entry into confined spaces, the effects of bogus documentation on it will be felt immediately and the effects of it will be deadly. This is from the article referenced below, a guy who teaches safety courses on entry into confined spaces wrote it, because people have died going into spaces they though were safe at 20.1% oxygen levels.

is there some way you could delete that post you made above where they assert that entry into a space any lower than 19.5% oxygen, but only if other gasses are NOT present and the reading has been corrected for humidity and elevation, is acceptable?

this is an exert from the safety course teachers article:

"For example, in the first case I worked on as an expert witness, the entry supervisor for a contract tank cleaning firm tested the atmosphere in a space and found it contained 20.1 percent oxygen. When I saw that number, I was concerned, very concerned. The supervisor wasn't; in fact, he was oblivious to the warning it provided. Instead, he testified with great confidence that he knew that 19.5 percent was "safe." After all, that's what he'd been taught at the confined space course he took at the state fire school.

The next day, three people including the plant safety director died when they entered an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. This, by the way, was the first of three cases I've worked on where one of the people who was killed was the on-site safety officer, "

essentially the author of this article explains why 19.5% or even higher, is NOT always safe.

in fact, someone should call the police on whomever made that document you posted above. that's not even funny, suggesting entry into space that is anywhere from 19% down to 4%, that's an immediate death sentence to anyone who heeds it.

http://ehstoday.com/safety/confined-spaces/ehs_imp_32784

G'day Earthlink,

I must say I'm a bit disappointed that I'm not reading about your global "Oxygen Enrichment Program" that you say you started in 2010.

Any who...

First off I'd like to thank you for reading the article I posted.

This is a tricky subject and I'm glad you're engaging with it.

The article is directed at OH&S officers & trainers. As such it is talking to their experiences and understanding while relating real world information so as to save lives.

That is why the author states:

My experience, drawn from thousands of people who have attended dozens of my courses, suggests that most folks don't have a clue as to why 19.5 percent is significant. While this oxygen level may be acceptable in some situations, relying on it without understanding its basis can lead to fatal consequences.

The article indicates that while the industry standard of 19.50% oxygen (volume) may be an appropriate minimum warning level to indicate that action needs to be taken, it is important to remember that any measurement that indicates a level of oxygen much below 20.94% (volume) indicates a problem that should be investigated prior to work commencing. If a work crew is pumping outside air into a tank for ventilation and the tank air is measuring well below 20.94% then this indicates there's something wrong.

In the article it was pointed out that a safety officer thought a level of 20.1% oxygen (volume) was appropriate (as it was greater than the 19.50% standard). As the author pointed out, it actually indicated that there was a major problem with the air in the confined work area (in this instance a tank that was being cleaned, so ventilation and residual fumes from the tanks contents or cleaning solvents may have been the issue).

The death of the 3 workers (including the safety officer) the following day in the confined work area is used as a cautionary tale.

Just because prior to work commencement the oxygen level is above the safe working minimum doesn't mean that when work commences (for example welding) that the environment will be safe for long. It is, after all, the minimum for entry...

I shan't take down the image I posted earlier as it is completely accurate and representative of the standard that you referenced.

In fact here's one from a book by the author of the article you referenced to compare to the one I used earlier (2nd image):

http://apanopticview.drivehq.com/images/rekusPg25.jpg

http://apanopticview.drivehq.com/images/OxygenLevels.jpg

It is an industry standard and as such people who know what it is should understand what it means (eg people working in the industry).

As Rekus wrote in the article:

All codes, regulations and standards... presume that readers have a substantial base of technical knowledge related to the subject matter.

Codes, regulations and standards are not intended to be cookbooks that tell us how to do something...

Similarly, OSHA's confined space regulation presumes that readers have substantial technical knowledge in areas such as, but not limited to, toxicology, fall protection, chemical protective clothing, machine guarding, fire protection, industrial hygiene instrumentation, electrical safety, lockout/tagout, respiratory protection, ventilation and adult learning methods.

In this light, there is a presumption that readers also understand the technical basis for many of the standard's requirements, including the 19.5 percent oxygen value. My experience, drawn from thousands of people who have attended dozens of my courses, suggests that most folks don't have a clue as to why 19.5 percent is significant

The point of the article was to show an error some safety officers were making in thinking that anything over 19.5% oxygen (volume) is safe. In some instances it isn't (it is an absolute minimum after all!) as atmospheric pressure, altitude, temperature, humidity and an individuals health all have an influence.

Rekus mentions the partial pressure of oxygen in hemoglobin in various instances:

Sea level
20.94% --> 110 mm Hg
19.50% --> 100 mm Hg

5000 feet (~1500 m)
20.94% --> 83 mm Hg
19.50% --> 74 mm Hg

Signs of oxygen deficiency start to appear at a partial pressure of:
60 mm Hg

So, while 19.50% at 5000 feet is not as safe as at sea level it still qualifies as a minimum safe level for entry and warning purposes (which is what it is) though at that altitude just walking around in the open air seems to cause some problems for persons not acclimatised.

An OH&S officer should know all this which is what Rekus is saying.

The oxygen/nitrogen ratio does not alter by much in the lower atmosphere (troposhpere). Of course altitude and humidity both play a part in how an organisms cardiovascular system is able to absorb the oxygen in the air.

It surprises me that any of this appears to be under contention.

It shouldn't be and has been studied for a century at least (much like the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere by both volume and mass).

For a handy page that shows equivalence of oxygen % by volume in air against varying altitudes for mountain climbers try:
http://www.altitude.org/air_pressure.php

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to provide some actual evidence to back up your hypothesis.

I took some photos earlier in the front paddock and I counted something approaching 50 butterflies in a couple of minutes.

If you want I'll pop them up. Also the forest up behind the back paddock is still full of critters doing what they do (one of the joys of living surrounded by a Cool Temperate Rainforest).

Guess I must just be lucky. :)

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

"Don't ever argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel"

You acknowledge that people do die in conditions where the O2 level is above 19.5%, and yet you still post bogus made up documents that say you CAN go into environs that are much less than that. You need help.

[panopticon]

"Don't ever argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel"

You acknowledge that people do die in conditions where the O2 level is above 19.5%, and yet you still post bogus made up documents that say you CAN go into environs that are much less than that. You need help.

G'day Earthlink,

Thanks for the response.

Which document was it that you didn't understand?

The above post of mine only uses references from the article you quoted (except for the image which is from a book by the same author).

-- Pan

[jackovesk]

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/customavatars/avatar17264_2.gif
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the_end_of_the_animal_kingdom/

Nice bit of ((AMBUSH MARKETING)) there EarthLink...:pound:...:thumb:

[Earthlink]

Here is that entire article:

I frequently ask participants in my confined space courses, "What makes 19.5 percent so special? Why isn't the acceptable level of oxygen something else, like 19.3 percent, 19.8 percent or 20.2 percent?" The usual answer I get is, "Because OSHA says so."

Contrary to popular belief, OSHA doesn't say that an oxygen level of 19.5 percent is "safe." Instead, 29 CFR 1910.146(b) defines a hazardous atmosphere as one "... that may expose employees to the risk of death, incapacitation, impairment, or ability to self-rescue (that is, escape unaided from a permit space), injury or acute illness from one or more of the following causes ...." The standard then goes on to list five causes, one of which is "... atmospheric oxygen concentration below 19.5 percent...."

Note the subtle difference here. The standard does not say that atmospheres containing 19.5 percent are safe; it says that those which have levels below 19.5 percent may be hazardous. While this might sound like hairsplitting, I"ll explain later why it isn't.

Understanding Standards

OSHA standards simply state regulatory requirements. They don't tell us how those requirements should be met, nor do they offer any advice, guidance, or commentary on how to achieve compliance. This is not something unique to OSHA. All codes, regulations and standards, whether issued by NFPA, ANSI or any other standards-making body, presume that readers have a substantial base of technical knowledge related to the subject matter.

Codes, regulations and standards are not intended to be cookbooks that tell us how to do something; but, rather, they are documents that summarize specific expectations. For example, building codes summarize the requirements that structures are expected to meet, but they don"t tell construction workers how to use their tools and equipment. Instead, they essentially presume that craftspeople already have the skills necessary to construct a building and that they will follow the codes to ensure that specific construction goals are achieved.

Similarly, OSHA's confined space regulation presumes that readers have substantial technical knowledge in areas such as, but not limited to, toxicology, fall protection, chemical protective clothing, machine guarding, fire protection, industrial hygiene instrumentation, electrical safety, lockout/tagout, respiratory protection, ventilation and adult learning methods.

In this light, there is a presumption that readers also understand the technical basis for many of the standard's requirements, including the 19.5 percent oxygen value. My experience, drawn from thousands of people who have attended dozens of my courses, suggests that most folks don't have a clue as to why 19.5 percent is significant. While this oxygen level may be acceptable in some situations, relying on it without understanding its basis can lead to fatal consequences.

For example, in the first case I worked on as an expert witness, the entry supervisor for a contract tank cleaning firm tested the atmosphere in a space and found it contained 20.1 percent oxygen. When I saw that number, I was concerned, very concerned. The supervisor wasn't; in fact, he was oblivious to the warning it provided. Instead, he testified with great confidence that he knew that 19.5 percent was "safe." After all, that's what he'd been taught at the confined space course he took at the state fire school.

The next day, three people including the plant safety director died when they entered an oxygen-deficient atmosphere. This, by the way, was the first of three cases I've worked on where one of the people who was killed was the on-site safety officer, but that's a story for another time.

While there were a number of other issues that had a bearing on this tragedy, the fact remains that the entry supervisor had an obvious indication the day before the incident that there was an atmospheric hazard present. An oxygen level of 20.1 percent provided a clear, unambiguous warning that something was wrong. Regrettably, the entry supervisor did not comprehend the warning because he, like so many other people, knew that 19.5 percent was "safe."

To understand why 19.5 percent oxygen may not be an acceptable level for entry into some confined spaces, we need to know something about the respiratory system.

The Respiratory System

The respiratory system consists of a single airway that branches into smaller and smaller passages, similar to the roots of a tree. At the end are small, grape-like clusters called alveoli. The alveoli are separated from blood-carrying capillaries by cell walls that are permeable to gases, such as oxygen and carbon dioxide. The driving force for the gas exchange across this barrier is a pressure difference that exists on opposite sides of the cell walls. Higher oxygen pressure on one side of the walls allows oxygen to flow from the lungs into the blood, while higher carbon dioxide pressure on the other side of the walls allows it to flow from the blood to the lungs.

Normal atmospheric air at sea level has a pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). Because air contains approximately 21 percent oxygen, oxygen's contribution to the total pressure, in other words its partial pressure, is 21 percent of 760 mm Hg, or about 159 mm Hg. But as fresh air enters the upper respiratory tract, it is humidified and the water vapor lowers the partial pressure of oxygen to about 150 mm Hg.

Once in the alveolar spaces, oxygen's partial pressure is further reduced by carbon dioxide that has passed from the blood stream to the lungs. Because the pressure of carbon dioxide in the alveoli is about 40 mm Hg, the oxygen's partial pressure drops from 150 to 110 mm Hg.

Once oxygen gets into the blood, it attaches to hemoglobin molecules which carry it to the cells. At an alveolar partial pressure of 110 mm Hg, the hemoglobin molecules are saturated. In other words, they are carrying all the oxygen they can. However, the saturation level is affected by the alveolar partial pressure and a drop in oxygen partial pressure produces a corresponding drop in hemoglobin saturation. It is important to note that physiologists generally agree that the effects of oxygen deficiency begin to manifest at partial pressures of about 60 mm Hg.

Relevance to Confined Spaces

"So what's all this got to do with confined spaces?" you might ask. The oxygen partial pressure inside a confined space may be lower than the 159 mm Hg found in ambient air. If so, the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveolar spaces also will be lower.

If inert gases like argon and nitrogen enter a space, they displace some of the atmospheric air. When this happens, the amount of oxygen and, thus, its partial pressure goes down. For example, assume that nitrogen leaks into a space, lowering the oxygen level to 19.5 percent. The oxygen partial pressure is now 19.5 percent of 760 mm Hg, or 148 mm Hg. When we subtract the partial pressure contributions of water vapor and carbon dioxide, the oxygen partial pressure in the alveolar spaces is down to about 100 mm Hg.

Because the hemoglobin saturation point is 110 mm Hg, the blood is not quite carrying the optimum quantity of oxygen. A partial pressure of 100 mm Hg is still 40 mm greater than the 60 mm physiological danger point. While our margin of safety may be reduced, the situation is not critical.

The 19.5 percent oxygen level that everyone is familiar with is intended to address situations such as this where atmospheric air has been displaced by an inert gas such as argon or nitrogen. However, in light of this, it should be abundantly clear that it's not the percentage of oxygen that's important, but, rather, the partial pressure of oxygen, and that 19.5 percent translates to a partial pressure of 148 mm Hg. Remember, though, all of this is only true at sea level.

Air at high altitudes contains the same percentage of oxygen and nitrogen as air at sea level; however, the barometric pressure at those altitudes is less than that at sea level. For example, the barometric pressure at 5,000 feet is 632 mm Hg vs. 760 mm Hg at sea level. That means that the oxygen partial pressure at 5,000 feet is about 133 mm Hg vs. 160 mm Hg at sea level (21 percent of 632 mm Hg is 133 mm Hg). If we again subtract the contribution for water vapor and carbon dioxide, we will find that alveolar oxygen partial pressure is about 83 mm Hg vs. 110 mm Hg at sea level.

However, at an oxygen level of 19.5 percent the level widely touted as "safe for entry" the oxygen partial pressure in the alveoli drops to about 74 mm Hg. Because the effects of oxygen deficiency will generally manifest at 60 mm Hg, it is clear that the margin of safety under these conditions has narrowed considerably.

While this discussion may appear academic, the effects of decreased oxygen partial pressure becomes an important consideration in some jobs. For example, consider a coastal area tank-cleaning crew that lands a contract to clean tanks in high plains areas such as Denver, Salt Lake City or Albuquerque. When a supervisor tests a space, finds a concentration of 19.5 percent oxygen and says that the space is "safe to enter," is it?

The work crew, unlike the residents of these areas, is not acclimatized, or used to the "thinner" air. After only mild exertion, they may suffer a variety of adverse effects, including reduced peripheral vision, abnormal fatigue and shortness of breath. While these impairments may be inconsequential in ordinary environments, they could impede escape or contribute to fatalities in confined spaces. Do you really think 19.5 percent oxygen is "safe" in this case?

Other Air Contaminants

Another thing I have observed is that most people don't seem to understand that a 1.5 percent drop in oxygen means that a whopping 7.5 percent of something else has gotten into the space.

Recall that, in round numbers, air consists of about 79 percent nitrogen and other gases and about 21 percent oxygen, so the approximate ratio of nitrogen to oxygen is about 4 to 1. This means that, as atmospheric air is displaced from a space, every 1 percent change in the oxygen level will be accompanied by a 4 percent change in the nitrogen level because both gases are displaced at the same rate. In other words, if we start dumping argon into a tank, it won't push out just the oxygen, it pushes out both oxygen and nitrogen in the same proportions that they exist in ambient air, about 4-to-1.

Using round numbers, if the oxygen level drops 1.5 percent from 21 percent to the "safe" level of 19.5 percent, the nitrogen level also must have changed by 6 percent, because four times 1.5 percent is 6 percent. Thus, a total 7.5 percent, or 75,000 parts per million (ppm), of some other substance must be present to cause the oxygen level to drop by just 1.5 percent. If that something else is an inert gas, such as argon or nitrogen, our concern focuses on the partial pressure effects previously explained. But what if it is some other gas or vapor?

Threshold Limit Values for many gases and vapors vary from about 10 to 100 ppm. My favorite solvent ethyl alcohol has the highest TLV, 1,000 ppm, so a level of 75,000 ppm would be 75 times greater than the highest TLV that exists! For substances with TLVs ranging between 10 and 100 ppm, we're now talking between 750 and 7,500 times over the TLV.

While this hazard may be identified through other sampling methods, such as the use of detector tubes, my experience suggests that many people don't understand the magnitude of the problem becuse they don't understand the limitations of the instruments they are using. For example, some participants in my classes tell me they use their combustible gas meters to evaluate the concentration of "toxic" air contaminants, such as acetone, hexane, toluene and methyl ethyl ketone.

Admittedly, these and many other gases and vapors are flammable and can be detected by a combustible gas meter if the concentrations are high enough; however, most combustible gas meters have a detection limit of about 1 percent LEL. This means that, even though the concentration of some gases and vapors may be 10 times over the TLV, the combustible gas meter reads zero. This is because this concentration, as high as it is, still is below the combustible gas meter's limit of detection.

So What's Acceptable?

Many reference sources suggest that air contains 20.95 percent oxygen. However, this value is based on the assumption that the air is "bone dry": in other words, it contains no moisture. However, air in most parts of the country does contain a certain amount of water vapor, which we recognize as humidity. While the exact volume of water that air can hold varies with temperature, a relative humidity of 40 to 60 percent at ambient temperatures can lower the oxygen level by about 0.1 percent. As a practical matter, a value of about 20.8 percent oxygen may be more appropriate than 20.9 percent, because the lower value takes humidity into account.

Now, think about this. If ordinary outside air contains 20.8 percent oxygen, and you're ventilating a space with this air, doesn't it stand to reason that the air in the space ought to also be 20.8 percent? If you make an oxygen measurement and your instrument reads 20.0 percent instead, don't you think you ought to be a little concerned? Shouldnt you ask yourself "Why?"? If you don't know why, should you really let people enter the space?

Summary

Contrary to popular belief, 19.5 percent oxygen is not some magic number. Rather, it's a value established on the basis of adverse physiological effects that may manifest at an oxygen partial pressure less than 148 mm Hg. Even if the oxygen is well above 19.5 percent, hazardous concentrations of other gases and vapors may be present. Some gases and vapors may be present at concentrations well above the TLV while, at the same time, they are below a combustible gas meter's limit of detection.

Because ambient air contains about 20.8 percent oxygen, if the oxygen concentration in a space is anything other than 20.8 percent, you should ask yourself "Why?". If you can't come up with a credible answer, you had better not let people enter a space until you can do so.

[Earthlink]

And Pan, do you really mean to tell me that you can't find any books from over the last 100 years where the oxygen level is not listed at todays listed rate (not verified by me and my oxygen sensor, by the way, just the rate they have accepted to print) and that rate is, as printed directly above here, 20.95%. You can not find any books from the last 100 years that do not have a different number than that??? Gee Pan, I don't think you're trying very hard at all, for, I have seen many books with numbers higher than that.

Perhaps you should just try.

Or try harder, if you think you've already tried.

I'll give you some advice though buddy, I myself have seen things posted online change overnight. Yep, it really happens, so, if you're only going to look at books that have been posted online, they have had the option of being edited. You may want to go to actual second hand bookstores in person and hold the book you are seeking information from in your own hands, or libraries, or anywhere else actual books have accumulated, as opposed to relying on virtual books.

Just sayin'

And hey, did you also know that there are thousands and thousands of people in this world, today, who have a job description where they are only to make sure that the fossil industrial complex always smells like a rose and is never liable or responsible for any ill effects of any kind what so ever, ever?

Yep. That job description exists, so, you will need to be wary of these people on your quest for truth.

You are on a quest for truth, right Pan?

And the final note on this article posted above, I'm not sure what year it was written. The O2 level today is not 20.95%, in any event.

[panopticon]

And Pan, do you really mean to tell me that you can't find any books from over the last 100 years where the oxygen level is not listed at todays listed rate (not verified by me and my oxygen sensor, by the way, just the rate they have accepted to print) and that rate is, as directly above here, 20.95%. You can not find any books from the last 100 years that do not have a different number than that??? Gee Pan, I don't think you're trying very hard at all, for, I have seen many books with number higher than that.

Perhaps you should just try.

Or try harder, if you think you've already tried.

G'day Earthlink,

Thanks for the response and the advice.

Very appreciated.

Just to be clear about this, in the article by Rekus he states:

While there were a number of other issues that had a bearing on this tragedy, the fact remains that the entry supervisor had an obvious indication the day before the incident that there was an atmospheric hazard present. An oxygen level of 20.1 percent provided a clear, unambiguous warning that something was wrong. Regrettably, the entry supervisor did not comprehend the warning because he, like so many other people, knew that 19.5 percent was "safe."

This isn't saying that the work team died from oxygen deficiency at 20.1% Oxygen (volume) it's saying that there were other issues and that 20.1% was the warning sign...

In addition I spent a lovely evening going through book after book and paper after paper. Must have perused a good 25 articles from the early 20th Century that were directly relevant.

I've asked before and now shall again.


Could you please supply a photocopy of the books/papers you've perused if they are not available online? Maybe just a reference that I can look for myself?
In addition could you now supply evidence to back up your assertions beyond stories about butterflies?
Also, and because I'm curious, what is your "Oxygen Enrichment Program" you are spruiking?

Thanks

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Righto. That's me for the night.

It's 2am here and I've got a busy day clearing scrub in the morrow.

Night all and I hope to have answers to my questions tomorrow night.

-- Pan :yo:

[Earthlink]

Pan, I'm really not interested in conflicting views on what is in the original article here, the one titled The End of the Animal Kingdom. That was written by one of the ten best engineers currently on the planet, and, I'm siding with it.

This wurld contains liars, Pan, and I'm under no obligation to entertain them or their agents.

You are entitled to your own views, and you are entitled to your own agents.

You are also free to begin you own thread.

[panopticon]

Pan, I'm really not interested in conflicting views on what is in the original article here, the one titled The End of the Animal Kingdom. That was written by one of the ten best engineers currently on the planet, and, I'm siding with it.

This wurld contains liars, Pan, and I'm under no obligation to entertain them or their agents.

You are entitled to your own views, and you are entitled to your own agents.

You are also free to begin you own thread.

You have told me to not participate in your thread.

You have provided no evidence and made extraordinary claims that I have challenged.

In response you go onto an attack footing and I am at a loss as to why you would wish to be combative.

All you need to do is provide some evidence and stop the silliness.

I'd be happy to be of assistance if you did. You haven't. Instead you have requested me to leave your thread.

I wish you well in your endeavours.

I wipe my boots as I leave.

-- Pan

[Jake]

Pan, I'm really not interested in conflicting views on what is in the original article here, the one titled The End of the Animal Kingdom. That was written by one of the ten best engineers currently on the planet, and, I'm siding with it.

This wurld contains liars, Pan, and I'm under no obligation to entertain them or their agents.

You are entitled to your own views, and you are entitled to your own agents.

You are also free to begin you own thread.

Earthlink,, this is a discussion forum. In a discussion forum, we DISCUSS things.. Even voice disagreements.. As it turns out,, you are more into dictating to others than discussing anything...

I think your source is faulty and I dont believe a word of it.. Id show you where you were wrong, but you are in no way open for discussion, just screaming wolf and insisting that the sky is falling.. Last year it was grasshoppers.

Now it is oxygen again..


Cheers Earthlink.. Please don't blame your limited mindset on others.. We are only trying to understand..

Your source can be disinfo too... Get to know the difference between Belief and Fact... You BELIEVE yor source... That does NOT make it factual...

The sky is not falling,,, the grasshoppers are fine,, and I am breathing the magnificentPacific NorthWest air....

Regardless of your beliefs..

Jake

[Earthlink]

Jake, there are pockets of species types randomly spread across the surface today. If you read the literature above on case studies that were discussed regarding people dying, you should be able to make a simple co-relation between an O2 level of anywhere near 20% and dying. Finding species types in one place does not mean they are everywhere, it only means they exist there. This is the nature of the occurrence of dead zones and a lowering O2 level. At the current level of O2 in the atmosphere, which, according to the video Pan posted from the scripps institute, it IS going down, and the author in that video expressed concern over this issue. In time, if nothing changes, these dead zones will spread and encompass all of the surface. Should we wait until they do, and there are no insects birds or fish remaining, or act now while they have not yet?

There's nothing really complicated here, it is just simple observation and math.

"It is a mistake for us to share our world with devices that, like me, consume oxygen."

--- Albert Einstein

[Jake]

The quoted text from Einstein is also an opinion.... Not factual.. I would tend to disagree with him... It is nothing short of amazing to share life with others.. Oxygen based life included....

Jake

[panopticon]

The quoted text from Einstein is also an opinion.... Not factual.. I would tend to disagree with him... It is nothing short of amazing to share life with others.. Oxygen based life included....

Jake

The only places I found this quote (other than in the above post) is in comments from the author OP's reference article The End of the Animal Kingdom, a Mr David Cardill from Ontario Canada.

It appears to have been written out of history (along with all of Einstein's other comments on oxygen levels falling that David Cardill claims he has made).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/10/23/206391/weekend-open-thread-2/
http://www.forumforpages.com/facebook/wikileaks-cablegate/the-end-of-the-animal-kingdom/2463300966/0
https://github.com/The-Art-of-Big-Social-Data/Facebook-Page-Info-Harvester/blob/master/coffeeparty.csv
https://www.facebook.com/deepgreenresistance/posts/101647570025754
http://m2.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10151685951187620&id=118566567619

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Pan, you can have whatever reality in front of yourself you like. Myself, I'm choosing the real one. And right here, in the now, and on this thread, I'm standing with my opening statement, which was: What was it about "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" that you did you not understand?

¤=[Post Update]=¤

There are no words you can use to change the reality wrought from this parasitical existence.

[panopticon]

Pan, you can have whatever reality in front of yourself you like. Myself, I'm choosing the real one. And right here, in the now, and on this thread, I'm standing with my opening statement, which was: What was it about "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" that you did you not understand?

¤=[Post Update]

There are no words you can use to change the reality wrought from this parasitical existence.

G'day Earthlink,

Thanks for the response.

I understand the situation all to well.

Please re-read my contributions to this thread.

I have covered all of this with more than enough detail and you have kept repeating your mantra no matter the evidence.

In your article you make claims with no evidence and then use the article as evidence for you claims...

You misrepresent the oxygen data used by Keeling for his curve and then when it is pointed out you tell everyone they don't know what they're talking about.

To quote from Scripps & Ralph Keeling (whose graph you continually refer to):



Should we be concerned that the atmospheric oxygen supply is declining?

This point was addressed in an article by Broecker (Science, Vol. 168, 1537-1538, 1970). Although written many years ago, the basic point made by the article remains valid. The maximum potential loss of O2 from fuel burning, when fossil fuel reserves (mostly coal) are exhausted is only a few percent of the atmospheric burden. Since even this loss will take many centuries to materialize, it's hard to see this as high on the list of possible environmental concerns. Fossil-fuel burning causes much larger relative changes in atmospheric CO2, which is much less abundant in air than O2.
Source (http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/should-we-be-concerned-atmospheric-oxygen-supply-declining%3F)



Oxygen concentrations are currently declining at roughly 19 per meg per year, or about 4 ppm per year. One "per meg" indicates one molecule out of 1,000,000 oxygen molecules, or roughly one molecule in 4.8 million molecules of air.

...

Oxygen Depletion

We are occasionally reminded that fossil fuel burning is depleting atmospheric oxygen at a rate of almost 1000 tons per second. There are about 32 million seconds in a year, so that somewhere around 30 billion tons of O2 are being converted to CO2 annually. There are about 1,200,000 billion metric tons of O2 in the atmosphere, so we can keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate for 40,000 years before we run out of oxygen. By then, all of the world's fossil fuel supply will have long since been exhausted. If we take the worlds supply of fossil fuel to be 10,000 billion metric tons of carbon, as per http://genomicscience.energy.gov/car...le/index.shtml and we oxidize all of it we would get about 37,000 billion metric tons of CO2, and about 27,000 billion metric tons of O2 would have been consumed. Some additional O2 would have also been consumed by oxidation of hydrogen in the (hydrocarbon) fuel, so that roughly 38,000 billion metric tons of oxygen would have been consumed. This is about 3.3 percent of the atmosphere's oxygen. Such a loss would be equivalent to increasing your elevation from sea level to about 330 meters, or about 1100 feet.
Source (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html)

Remember, before you come out with something about the above quotes, Keeling is the scientist whose graphs you keep using...

I live above 500 metres and it is not exactly challenging...

In addition maybe refer to the Father of modern climate change science Wallace Broecker's article here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm

That's what it was about "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" that I didn't understand.

O2 is decreasing, but only in very tiny amounts, and everything isn't dying from O2 deficiency. Where deaths are occurring it is due to climatic changes (notably in my bio-region from heat stress and even 1080 baiting) and not oxygen deficiency. In marine environments "Dead Zones" are mostly attributed to nitrogen fertiliser run-off, uplift/seeps from tectonic movement and on coast upwelling of deep sea nutrients.

There again, what do I know...

-- Pan

[Nick Matkin]

[...] I'm standing with my opening statement, which was: What was it about "the oxygen level is falling and everything is dying" that you did you not understand?


What? I think after 93 posts of this thread that you have been shown to be undeniably, categorically and completely wrong in your statements.

It's difficult to say "The overwhelming evidence contradicting my beliefs shows that I was mistaken", but there is nothing wrong with a little contrition from time to time; it makes us look like honourable human beings. Persistent self denial in the face of proof looks delusional.

What are you really trying to prove/promote?

And by the way, you still, very conspicuously, haven't described your "Oxygen Enrichment Program", other than your statement "OEP is the Oxygen Enrichment Program. Its' [sic] goal is to enrich the atmosphere with Oxygen until such time as the O2 level is at or above 25%."

You do realise don't you, that should you ever reach you goal, all hell would break loose? Oxygen levels greater than 23.5% (volume) in a confined space is an extreme fire hazard (post 68), so what about 25% or above in the open? What other unpredictable subtle effects will it have on the biosphere? Then there's the extra generation of free-radicals! And what about the effect on the ozone layer? Maybe reduced radiation reaching the ground of certain light wavelengths - not necessarily a good thing.

You have done all these calculations I guess, and had them checked? Good, then let's see them so I know my fears are ill-founded.

Thanks.

Nick

[Earthlink]

I have taken readings of the O2 level of the atmosphere over several years MYSELF, and I find it is declining much faster than the evidence you brought forth states. There is a discrepancy between what you bring forth and reality, so, I'm siding with reality. The number of all of the insect and bird species in all of the forests I have been in over the last 10 years are also declining. In the moxnews video I posted above, the one where dead species in large numbers are showing up all over the globe, is based on real world observations too. The 8000 or so dead birds that fell dead in Italy were white birds, and this offered us a clue as to what was happening, because as is stated in that video, those birds all had blue stains in their dead mouths, which we could easily see because those birds were white, and that is a sign of death by an insufficient amount of oxygen.

Why do you insist you are the one who is correct on this? I do not know the people who wrote the documentation you bring, so, why should I trust it, especially if it disagree's with real world measurements and real world observations?

Because you say so?

I'm sorry, I don't know you either, and just because you say so, doesn't give me anything valid, in my opinion, especially when there is a large body of evidence stating otherwise. I would be foolish to believe you while there is contradictory evidence.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Also, the scripps video Pan posted above says much of what I'm saying too. That video doesn't contradict real world measurements, and one of the interviewee's in it states his concern for the dropping O2 level as well. Considering we'll all die without enough of it, I believe his concerns are justified, as are mine.

[Nick Matkin]

I have taken readings of the O2 level of the atmosphere over several years MYSELF...

Well done, but where, when, by using which method and to what level of accuracy?


[...]those birds all had blue stains in their dead mouths, which we could easily see because those birds were white, and that is a sign of death by an insufficient amount of oxygen.

Even if there were blue secretions in their dead mouths, which and how do a bird's secretions turn blue in the absence of oxygen?

(Perhaps they'd been eating slug pellets.)

Nick

[Earthlink]

Also, there already does exist, in writing, a mandate, from UNESCO, under the Philosophy and World Problems, in the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, to bring the O2 level of the atmosphere back to 24% and to keep it there.

That already exists, so, all I can assume, because you read a document somewhere written by someone you don't know who told you that 24% oxygen level is a fire hazard, then, you are gullible. You seem to be easily led astray on this issue. You believe things that are impossible to believe because of what someone you do not know said about it. Not only was our atmosphere almost right on a quarter O2 the first time we checked it, and that is 25%, but it could even go into the high 30's and it still wouldn't have an adverse effect on me, or fire.

I know what the documentation you brought forward on this says, and, I have rejected it, as the people who wrote it either don't understand reality themselves, or, are purposefully lying about it, but either way, it is grossly false.

You know, if you purchased your own O2 sensor, and then got a refrigeration mechanic to calibrate it for you, you wouldn't need to come here and argue with me over this issue, you could just go read your own sensor every day and see for yourself. If this issue concerns you this much, I strongly suggest you do this, for yourself, but in any event the documentation you brought has been viewed by the author of this thread, and, he has rejected it because there are no real world observations to support it.

[Earthlink]

Hey, and if you want to read and view the documentation in the Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, you are going to have to sign up and pay money to have access to it. I applaud that decision on their part, because what this does is it keeps the thousands of empty headed authors with internet access, who's only purpose is to CONTRADICT EVERYTHING the **** off the site, and the real work of science can progress, without hollow and needless bickering.

[panopticon]

Hey Earthlink,

What's the chapter from the EOLSS section you're referencing please.

There are lots to choose from so be a bit more precise there bloke.

BTW, it's bad form to reference something behind a paywall as it does not allow everyone to read what you're talking about (in context).

I'm not actually sure how saying something is in an encyclopedia (cause you sure as hell haven't referenced it) helps anyone when you're ignoring the source documentation from the leaders in the field (the same leaders in their field that you reference when it's convenient for your hypothesis).

Actually, just provide the fully referenced quote so everyone can see it in context.

That would be best for all concerned.

Remember you can easily quote a page or two without violating copyright.

Also, at no stage did Ralph Keeling or Andrew Dickson say there was a problem with O2 levels in the Scripps video I provided. What Keeling said was in relation to the Carbon cycle:


He [Charles Keeling] dropped the hint that measuring oxygen in the atmosphere might be a way to get a handle on that.
...
Well we expected, and found, that oxygen levels are decreasing with time. They follow a pattern very much like the Mauna Loa record, except in reverse. That is we see an oscillation that reflects the seasonal growth and decay of the biosphere.

The trees are growing in the Summer and you see a return flux of carbon in the Fall and Winter when there's the decay of the leaf litter.

A similar cycle effects oxygen coming from the oceans.

We see this cyclical behaviour, but superimposed on that we see a year to year decrease and that decrease is very nearly explained by the amount of fuel humans are burning every year. The amount of fossil fuel humans are burning.


This mirrors Keeling, Manning & Katz's findings here (ttps://web.archive.org/web/20090110154256/http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/publications/annrpt25/Manning.pdf) (which is also an article Earthlink has referenced previously).

Anyway, in relation to the oxygen levels in prehistory...

The following article might be of interest for anyone following this thread.

-- Pan

###

Oxygen fuels the fires of time (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802091125.htm)

http://images.sciencedaily.com/2010/08/100802091125-large.jpg

Variations in the Earth's atmospheric oxygen levels are thought to be closely linked to the evolution of life, with strong feedbacks between uni- and multicellular life and oxygen. Over the past 400 million years, the level of oxygen has varied considerably from the 21% value we have today.

Scientists Royal Holloway, University of London and from The Field Museum in Chicago, publishing their results in the journal Nature Geoscience, have revealed that the amount of charcoal preserved in ancient peat bogs, now coal, gives a measure of how much oxygen there was in the past.

Until now, scientists have relied on geochemical models to estimate atmospheric oxygen concentrations. However, a number of competing models exist, each with significant discrepancies and no clear way to resolve an answer. All models agree that around 300 million years ago in the Late Paleozoic, atmospheric oxygen levels were much higher than today. These elevated concentrations have been linked to gigantism in some animal groups, in particular insects, the dragonfly Meganeura monyi with a wingspan of over two feet epitomizing this. Some scientists think these higher concentrations of atmospheric oxygen may also have allowed vertebrates to colonize the land.

These higher levels of oxygen were a direct consequence of the colonization of land by plants. When plants photosynthesize they evolve oxygen. However, when the carbon stored in plant tissues decays atmospheric oxygen is used up. To produce a net increase in atmospheric oxygen over time organic matter must be buried. The colonization of land by plants not only led to new plant growth but also a dramatic increase in the burial of carbon. This burial was particularly high during the Late Paleozoic when huge coal deposits accumulated.

Dr Ian J Glasspool from The Field Museum explained that, "Atmospheric oxygen concentration is strongly related to flammability. At levels below 15% wildfires could not have spread. However, at levels significantly above 25% even wet plants could have burned, while at levels around 30 to 35%, as have been proposed for the Late Paleozoic, wildfires would have been frequent and catastrophic."

The researchers, including Professor Andrew C Scott from the Royal Holloway University of London, have shown that charcoal found in coal has remained at concentrations of around 4-8% over the past 50 million years indicating near to present levels of atmospheric oxygen. However, there were periods in Earth History when the charcoal percentage in the coals was as high as 70%. This indicates very high levels of atmospheric oxygen that would have promoted many frequent, large, and extremely hot fires. These intervals include the Carboniferous and Permian Periods from 320-250 million years ago and the Middle Cretaceous Period approximately 100 million years ago.

"It is interesting," Professor Scott points out, "that these were times of major change in the evolution of vegetation on land with the evolution and spread of new plant groups, the conifers in the late Carboniferous and flowering plants in the Cretaceous." These periods of high fire resulting from elevated atmospheric oxygen concentration might have been self-perpetuating with more fire meaning greater plant mortality, and in turn more erosion and therefore greater burial of organic carbon which would have then promoted elevated atmospheric oxygen concentrations. Professor Scott states, "The mystery to us is why oxygen levels appear to have more or less stabilized about 50 million years ago."

Source (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100802091125.htm)

[Earthlink]

Pan, I'm sorry that there are people in this world who tell half truths and whole lies about things, I really am, Life would be so much better for all involved (imagine the burden of having to remember 2 distinctly different scripts, the truth, and what you tell other people, your entire life?!?!?! what a burden to carry, to partition your own hard drive and decrease your own ability in all things to do with your own mental capacity, because you have to maintain two scripts at all times, yet, it occurs, and what happens 20 years later, and someone asks of an incident from the past, and they forget the lie part and only retain in memory the true parts? that can be embarrassing huh?) if truth were adhered to more strictly, but alas, it is not.

so, as I've said, I am sticking with what I know to be real. the measurements I have taken myself over the years is an ongoing data source for me, as is the continuing mass species die offs that is also ongoing planet wide most often observed every seasonal winter of the Northern Hemisphere now since the year 2000 going forward.

no, I do not recognize those people mentioned above as my leaders on this topic, and, no I do not agree with the assertions in the document you posted immediately above here as legitimate because in my mind a 24% oxygen level is first of all very natural, and is not as they assert, a fire threat, and I find their words approaching what I call ridiculous: the assertion that a 23.5% or 24% oxygen level is a fire hazard! bwaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahaha where did he get his degree, in a cracker jack box?!?

and about that scripps video, I watched it, and I got things from it like "... work led to sobering conclusions about Nature's ability to compensate for fossil fuel burning" and "not capable of keeping up or mitigating the Human impacts on the atmosphere" and "bottom line is we're not going to get a control on this unless we curtail fossil fuel burning, that's the real bottom line" and "we will see ecosystems all over the planet on the run" and "particularly if we allow it to progress at a rapid pace"

my position will always remain that the atmosphere should be brought back to 24% and kept there, and that it is under 20% today and is presently (currently it is the winter season in the northern hemisphere) continuing to fall.

i'm not going to change my mind on this, and, if you disagree, you are entitled, however i will reserve the right to assert that any documentation you may find in the multiverse and subsequently bring here is not going to be assumed by me to be the final word on this issue, or even a valid contributor to this topic, just because it presents itself as such.

i can still find valid arguments today as to why the Earth is, in fact, flat.

[DarMar]

Thing that bothers me most is attack and laughter earthlink received for bringing some real questions on board.
But it is hard to fight over one thing when it ties all the vagons behind.. you can not change perception of o2 without changing whole perception and start noticing.

Is it because ways he talk? i doubt so, because i got stomach sick with every nicer version of attack, because covering it in niceness makes it more slimy.. imho

back to topic, would suggest that every one for himself should go investigate what;s happening with oxygen levels and stop linking science papers and newspaper evidence.
What he says is completely true.
People fall asleep lot easier there days, and you can see proof of lacking oxygen EVERYDAY, if you want to see.

BUT if you like your metal pet-car and shoot dioxide in air feeling comfortably numb by thinking you save time and money for going to job... please, have people of LA saw sky lately ? can it be seen from SMOG after all?
What do you exactly need to see? well most need to start literally chocking to death to realise, and that's sad part, even sadder than this one here where they come by and argue about validity of core broken concept.

I'm 35, i never did sit in car and never would.
Never used chems, spilled into ground and similar evryday s***

I too have link with mother nature, and YES this is an ISSUE, one of biggest along with latest Bob's thread with food poisoning.

TBH i never got angry by any of earthlink words, only thing i got angry is when he was sent on vacation from doing that first post???!? because of words?!?!?
are not we the final factor and filter which does or does not understand?

so many chems, aerosols, dioxide, ashes... yes machines to breed also take air?
to have metal-pet you initally have to buy one, pay taxes for it, pay services, manage oil on month basis, pay registration pay road, pay parking, pay insurance, pay gas .... PAY WITH YOUR LIFE!!

is clear to you by today that guys who want you to pay PRINT that same valute? print WHENEVER they want?

if you read carefully in between lines it says: "ORGANIC LIFE GETS DESTROYED BY INORGANIC"
if you are careful you will notice: "IT NEEDS YOU TO COMPLY FOR IT TO WORK BECAUSE YOU ARE THE EXECUTOR"
if you are knowing: "YOU KNOW IT IS A TRICK-DECEPTION"

and if you understand you will get stomach sick before even entering a car, until that stomach sick you will come to this thread and excuse your actions by same lamery and trickery.
RESEARCH HAS TO BE DONE BY INDIVIDUAL FOR INDIVIDUAL

Earthlink has pointed a finger... he did not tell you what you should expect to find there...
it didn't work..

Now i'm throwing a rock in that place so maybe you can spot it better... if not? who cares, i turn away and go another way, because it is already a FACTUAL thing that one cannot see... searching evidence in articles :D

go run by a road for a 30 mins.. you will pick up more evidence than spending 30 days googling s**t

[Earthlink]

Thank you DarMar, you are one of the billions of reasons myself and all the others working on this have not given up:hug:

[panopticon]

Hey Earthlink,

You must have missed me asking for your assistance:


What's the chapter from the EOLSS section you're referencing please.

There are lots to choose from so be a bit more precise there bloke.

...

Actually, just provide the fully referenced quote so everyone can see it in context.

That would be best for all concerned.

Remember you can easily quote a page or two without violating copyright.

Cheers
Pan

[Earthlink]

... I don't have access either, as I am not staff to UNESCO. I was told about it from a university professor of psychology, years ago, who is also an avid bird watcher (a dying hobby of late but it still maintains some participants, and if you'd like some good first hand eye witness reports, people who have hobbies as bird watchers are such, and they will tell you all about what I call the living hell being visited on Earth today) and, I saw it at the UNESCO main office for China, in Beijing. Apparently you can access their portal through many universities as well. And, I did read it, and, I'm trying to have it become an active mandate as it is sitting idle. It was helpful when I was in Beijing, as it clearly states 24%, and this is hopefully spurring action there right now.

And do you know something else, Pan. This thread has gone on too long for me now. Way too long. To me, it is like I am trying to carry you out of an area that I know is not survivable, and you keep grabbing the trees that we pass by as I am trying to take you to a place where you will be safe, making it way more difficult for me than it has to be. And, I also refuse to leave you behind.

This is what this is like for me, ok buddy?

I thought you said a while ago that you were wiping your feet on the way out? What happened?

[panopticon]

Thing that bothers me most is attack and laughter earthlink received for bringing some real questions on board.
But it is hard to fight over one thing when it ties all the vagons behind.. you can not change perception of o2 without changing whole perception and start noticing.

Is it because ways he talk? i doubt so, because i got stomach sick with every nicer version of attack, because covering it in niceness makes it more slimy.. imho

back to topic, would suggest that every one for himself should go investigate what;s happening with oxygen levels and stop linking science papers and newspaper evidence.
What he says is completely true.
People fall asleep lot easier there days, and you can see proof of lacking oxygen EVERYDAY, if you want to see.

BUT if you like your metal pet-car and shoot dioxide in air feeling comfortably numb by thinking you save time and money for going to job... please, have people of LA saw sky lately ? can it be seen from SMOG after all?
What do you exactly need to see? well most need to start literally chocking to death to realise, and that's sad part, even sadder than this one here where they come by and argue about validity of core broken concept.

I'm 35, i never did sit in car and never would.
Never used chems, spilled into ground and similar evryday s***

I too have link with mother nature, and YES this is an ISSUE, one of biggest along with latest Bob's thread with food poisoning.

TBH i never got angry by any of earthlink words, only thing i got angry is when he was sent on vacation from doing that first post???!? because of words?!?!?
are not we the final factor and filter which does or does not understand?

so many chems, aerosols, dioxide, ashes... yes machines to breed also take air?
to have metal-pet you initally have to buy one, pay taxes for it, pay services, manage oil on month basis, pay registration pay road, pay parking, pay insurance, pay gas .... PAY WITH YOUR LIFE!!

is clear to you by today that guys who want you to pay PRINT that same valute? print WHENEVER they want?

if you read carefully in between lines it says: "ORGANIC LIFE GETS DESTROYED BY INORGANIC"
if you are careful you will notice: "IT NEEDS YOU TO COMPLY FOR IT TO WORK BECAUSE YOU ARE THE EXECUTOR"
if you are knowing: "YOU KNOW IT IS A TRICK-DECEPTION"

and if you understand you will get stomach sick before even entering a car, until that stomach sick you will come to this thread and excuse your actions by same lamery and trickery.
RESEARCH HAS TO BE DONE BY INDIVIDUAL FOR INDIVIDUAL

Earthlink has pointed a finger... he did not tell you what you should expect to find there...
it didn't work..

Now i'm throwing a rock in that place so maybe you can spot it better... if not? who cares, i turn away and go another way, because it is already a FACTUAL thing that one cannot see... searching evidence in articles :D

go run by a road for a 30 mins.. you will pick up more evidence than spending 30 days googling s**t

G'day DarMar,

Thanks for participating.

I would be happy to believe Earthlink's claims as I'm a Permaculture advocate and work in my spare time at soil and environmental remediation/rehabilitation.

Unfortunately Earthlink is making claims that have no foundation nor evidence outside of his own assertions.

He has claimed that oxygen levels dropped over the 20th Century somewhere between 4% & 5%.

He says he bases this on old text books that he has (or has seen) yet can not supply a copy of even one of them nor a reference for others to look at.

The problem is that oxygen decline is a symptom of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (due, in my opinion, largely to fossil fuel burning) and measurements show the close correlation.

That is what Ralph Keeling at Scripps along with numerous others have been showing through their measurements and papers they have written.

We all agree that Oxygen levels have been declining.

That is not the problem.

The problem is that Earthlink is trying to make a correlation between a vast array of (what I would call) unrelated events to say that O2 decline is the cause. For some of these to happen he claims that oxygen levels are much lower than anyone else has recorded.

For example:
He claimed that dead fish washed ashore in New Zealand was due to oxygen deficiency (ie a oceanic dead zone).
We know that millions of fish get dumped off that coast every year (even a million fish dumped per year is around 3000 fish per day!). A regulatory problem makes it more economically viable for fishermen to dump certain fish types so they can avoid a fine for going over their allocated quota of that fish type.

Which is more likely?

A dead zone spontaneously appeared and then disappeared (which is possible if a tectonic uptake occurred in the area)
A dead zone occurred because an undocumented drop in oxygen over the ocean lowered the oxygen level in the ocean (I've got no idea how that would even work) or
A fishing boat dumped 1000's of fish off-shore at night to avoid a fine?


Oh, and remember that the fish that washed up were all of the same type...

He's also claiming that increased oxygen in the atmosphere would have no effect on fire volatility. This ignores the basic chemistry of the reaction that occurs during a fire. Lower oxygen retards a fire (or puts it out) increasing oxygen of course increases a fires access to oxygen and tends to increase the fires ability to consume fuel. The more oxygen is supplied the more fuel a fire can consume which makes the flames hotter.

That's not really hard to understand and can be shown quite easily (search Youtube there are a number of demonstration videos).

In a world with increased oxygen, wildfires would be harder to contain. Coming from Australia, where massive wildfires are becoming more regular due to a number of climatic changes, for me that is a terrifying thought.

Of course everyone should believe what they want. I never claim anything else.

My only point is that it should be an informed opinion that is based on verified facts.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Pan

[Earthlink]

DarMar I do not expect you to answer for a thread that I began, and actually you said so above, you were just not heard, but please, as I began this thread I think Pan should only direct his questions to me, here, on this thread. Thank you.

[panopticon]

... I don't have access either, as I am not staff to UNESCO. I was told about it from a university professor of psychology, years ago, who is also an avid bird watcher (a dying hobby of late but it still maintains some participants, and if you'd like some good first hand eye witness reports, people who have hobbies as bird watchers are such, and they will tell you all about what I call the living hell being visited on Earth today) and, I saw it at the UNESCO main office for China, in Beijing. Apparently you can access their portal through many universities as well. And, I did read it, and, I'm trying to have it become an active mandate as it is sitting idle. It was helpful when I was in Beijing, as it clearly states 24%, and this is hopefully spurring action there right now.

And do you know something else, Pan. This thread has gone on too long for me now. Way too long. To me, it is like I am trying to carry you out of an area that I know is not survivable, and you keep grabbing the trees that we pass by as I am trying to take you to a place where you will be safe, making it way more difficult for me than it has to be. And, I also refuse to leave you behind.

This is what this is like for me, ok buddy?

I thought you said a while ago that you were wiping your feet on the way out? What happened?

Hey Earthlink,

No worries. You can't provide the link or reference to the EOLSS article (eveh though you've used it in China). Fair enough.

I resumed my participation in this thread after Jake said it was a discussions forum. I decided I agreed with his sagely advice.

I only withdrew from the thread as you requested me to but in hindsight Jake was correct so I decided to resume asking questions and presenting evidence.

I agree that bird numbers are in decline in certain bio-regions due largely to a combination of increased agricultural land, pesticides/insecticides (killing not only chicks but their food source) and, in my bio-region at least, heat-stress.

Harkens back to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring doesn't it.

A really good paper on the effect of insectides (if you have access to the journal Nature or try here (http://libgen.in/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1038%2Fnature13531)) is:
Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13531.html)

Also here's a study that's relevant to the above paper:
Large-Scale Changes in Community Composition: Determining Land Use and Climate Change Signals (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035272)

I hope these are useful.

As for you trying to pull me from an unsafe forest...

That's just a bit weird bloke. Pull your head in eh?

-- Pan

[panopticon]

DarMar I do not expect you to answer for a thread that I began, and actually you said so above, you were just not heard, but please, as I began this thread I think Pan should only direct his questions to me, here, on this thread. Thank you.

Yep, I have been.

You just ain't answering.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Here's a simple question for you Earthlink:

What is your Oxygen Enrichment Program?

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

I added panopticon to my ignore list. this thread has gone on way too long, for me. even after he posted data which told of the tell tale blue lips effects of a lack of sufficient oxygen, and the video i posted with all those birds that died in Italy with blue lips, he still insists that i am telling lies, or, that i am not competent or something. my reports here are based on real world data and observations, nothing more.

[DarMar]

isnt it funny how we all three agree that:
We all agree that Oxygen levels have been declining.

and after that saying:
That is not the problem.



Somehow i tried to say to you that you don't need to search for needle in haystack, because it is not needle you need to spotify.
evidence you searching is non existant and in this control manipulation will never be..

on your which is more likely question, i would vote for nr.3 even all 3 are possible and plausible to manifest due to lack of oxygen. But i can also add to it another 3000 of plausible reasons for someone to bang his head of possible solution.

But what mystifies me most is arrangement of importance.. reminds me on my girlfriend :)
i say to her thousand thank you, loving her being and respecting her every day for lets say month or two which keeps nice vibration, if ever, by any chance i say something bad in single second.. she falls so deep in depression that she needs a week to get out of it back to nice vibrations.. all that nice months are forgot in split second.. what puzzles me, how all that positive vibration didn't help her to raise again.. but quite all way around, one single bad word keeps getting her to forget all beauty of it..
in transcription : positive messages got lost due to one stupidity moment and that moment overshadows all

anyways back on thread.. i still could accept all 3 as a possibility, in fact all three can be manifested at same time from same reason, don't they?

i dont look at demonstration videos, i in fact did BUNCH TONS OF THEM, for people that were convinced that is their truth.. i do not argue, i respect their truth
that are all opinions, only factual thing is that oxygen is lowering and emissions from machinery are growing, period.

that is left out of opinion because it manifests itself by being in this moment doing that.
you can not power on a car that does not eat oxygen to keep fire burning and emits dioxide.. it is a fact. same as fact that you die if fact 1 becomes more and more normal.
but is not only a car, it is an everyday reality need for every household today, computers do the same believe it or not,
metal does it also just by beign metal ... do not believe? leave it in room for some time and come back and smell a room... it oxydates, there is reason why it is under earth, reason people forgot. Do i have scientific papers to prove reason of metal powers people forgot? Hell, no, and if i would, you think others would not, how would they forgot otherwise?

what you are searching is quite impossible to get.. an black and white signed evidence that oppressor is oppressing.. in a times while they are indeed oppressing.. can it be more ankward?
what you do with those papers on end?
believe more?
or believe less?
is real question to ask.

[Earthlink]

here is the news report with the 8000 doves that died in italy. it is an actual news report, from the mainscream media. they do show a number of locations in this clip, but nowhere near all of them. this just keeps getting worse every year. thanks Pan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsM5MxMO-JE

[Earthlink]

and, one of these days, i am going to go to the library and take some pictures from some older science books, just to have on file for myself the actual numbers from the historical record, which again, Pan, insisting that nothing had changed ... all while so much had in fact changed?!?, anyway when i do that, i'll post those pics here, of course. i'll start a new thread on that day.

the thing is, why should i even have to do that? what possible reason would i have for making false observations regarding this?!?

so frustrating

[panopticon]

isnt it funny how we all three agree that:
We all agree that Oxygen levels have been declining.

and after that saying:
That is not the problem.



Somehow i tried to say to you that you don't need to search for needle in haystack, because it is not needle you need to spotify.
evidence you searching is non existant and in this control manipulation will never be..

on your which is more likely question, i would vote for nr.3 even all 3 are possible and plausible to manifest due to lack of oxygen. But i can also add to it another 3000 of plausible reasons for someone to bang his head of possible solution.

But what mystifies me most is arrangement of importance.. reminds me on my girlfriend :)
i say to her thousand thank you, loving her being and respecting her every day for lets say month or two which keeps nice vibration, if ever, by any chance i say something bad in single second.. she falls so deep in depression that she needs a week to get out of it back to nice vibrations.. all that nice months are forgot in split second.. what puzzles me, how all that positive vibration didn't help her to raise again.. but quite all way around, one single bad word keeps getting her to forget all beauty of it..
in transcription : positive messages got lost due to one stupidity moment and that moment overshadows all

anyways back on thread.. i still could accept all 3 as a possibility, in fact all three can be manifested at same time from same reason, don't they?

i dont look at demonstration videos, i in fact did BUNCH TONS OF THEM, for people that were convinced that is their truth.. i do not argue, i respect their truth
that are all opinions, only factual thing is that oxygen is lowering and emissions from machinery are growing, period.

that is left out of opinion because it manifests itself by being in this moment doing that.
you can not power on a car that does not eat oxygen to keep fire burning and emits dioxide.. it is a fact. same as fact that you die if fact 1 becomes more and more normal.
but is not only a car, it is an everyday reality need for every household today, computers do the same believe it or not,
metal does it also just by beign metal ... do not believe? leave it in room for some time and come back and smell a room... it oxydates, there is reason why it is under earth, reason people forgot. Do i have scientific papers to prove reason of metal powers people forgot? Hell, no, and if i would, you think others would not, how would they forgot otherwise?

what you are searching is quite impossible to get.. an black and white signed evidence that oppressor is oppressing.. in a times while they are indeed oppressing.. can it be more ankward?
what you do with those papers on end?
believe more?
or believe less?
is real question to ask.

I agree DarMar.

You raise some very good points.

Carbon Dioxide is most definitely on the rise and oxygen is most definitely in decline.

The rate of increase/decrease is almost identical in the atmosphere.

Problem is that there is much more oxygen (21%) as compared to Carbon Dioxide (0.04%) so the reduction in oxygen is actually very small.

The oxygen reduction is used to illustrate how the carbon cycle works and how the use of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide.

Pretty straight forward and not contentious in the least.

I hope this was helpful.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Anyway, on the bright side, I am feeling happy right now. This is the, what, third time I posted a similar thread? And! this is the longest amount of time the thread has remained active, to date!!!

:happy::banplease::happy:

some author said once that if you're going to tell people some truths, you had better make it funny, otherwise they may just kill you. in this moment, I am happy, and this is all the funny I can find in this topic. there will be no more after this, so, share in it for this moment. gear heads and scientists are not usually known for their sense of humour.

[panopticon]

and, one of these days, i am going to go to the library and take some pictures from some older science books, just to have on file for myself the actual numbers from the historical record, which again, Pan, insisting that nothing had changed ... all while so much had in fact changed?!?, anyway when i do that, i'll post those pics here, of course. i'll start a new thread on that day.

the thing is, why should i even have to do that? what possible reason would i have for making false observations regarding this?!?

so frustrating

Please do. Would be lovely to see some evidence.

Don't forget to reference the books while you're at it.


I added panopticon to my ignore list. this thread has gone on way too long, for me. even after he posted data which told of the tell tale blue lips effects of a lack of sufficient oxygen, and the video i posted with all those birds that died in Italy with blue lips, he still insists that i am telling lies, or, that i am not competent or something. my reports here are based on real world data and observations, nothing more.

No worries, I'll still be replying to your comments.


here is the news report with the 8000 doves that died in italy. it is an actual news report, from the mainscream media. they do show a number of locations in this clip, but nowhere near all of them. this just keeps getting worse every year. thanks Pan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsM5MxMO-JE

That's the same video we talked about a few days ago and you posted last year.

The turtle doves may have died from eating sunflower seeds that then expanded in their gullets:


'The most likely cause are discarded sunflower seeds that were found on an industrial estate close to where the bodies of the turtle doves were found.

'In essence the birds were greedy, ate too many of the seeds - which we have found inside them during autopsies - and this brought on the indigestion that led to their death.'


The sunflower seeds may have caused a reaction in the Doves that resulted in liver, kidney and cardiovascular systems crashing.

Hence why they fell from the sky.

Since you've added me to you ignore list can I assume that you don't want to tell us what the Oxygen Enrichment Program is that you have said you are spruiking to the Swiss and Chinese?

Can someone else ask him cause truthfully I already thought I was on Earthlink's ignore settings...

He sure as hell ain't been answering any questions...

-- Pan

[panopticon]

Anyway, on the bright side, I am feeling happy right now. This is the, what, third time I posted a similar thread? And! this is the longest amount of time the thread has remained active, to date!!!

some author said once that if you're going to tell people some truths, you had better make it funny, otherwise they may just kill you. in this moment, I am happy, and this is all the funny I can find in this topic. there will be no more after this, so, share in it for this moment. gear heads and scientists are not usually known for their sense of humour.

Glad you're out of your depression. :)

-- Pan

[Nick Matkin]

[...] even after he posted data which told of the tell tale blue lips effects of a lack of sufficient oxygen, and the video i posted with all those birds that died in Italy with blue lips, he still insists that i am telling lies, or, that i am not competent or something. my reports here are based on real world data and observations, nothing more.

Birds with lips...?

And since you've added pan to your ignore list, I'll repeat his and my question yet again; what is your Oxygen Enrichment Program?

Nick

[Earthlink]

The Oxygen Enrichment Program is a group of us who have gone ahead and activated the un-funded and idle mandate to restore the O2 level of the atmosphere to 24% and keep it there.

You don't agree with this Nick, so why should you care what this program is? You're not going to help with it either, so ...

You also don't believe there to be any bad effects from using billions of internal combustion engines on a daily basis, and you refuse to believe that gauges do not lie: they are incapable of lying. People lie all the time, and, they are completely capable of lying all the time.

And all the while, the real effects from using so many ICE's is ripping through The Animal Kingdom today, as the knowledge of its' known effects has succumbed to people who lie all the time.

You may even believe that no human deaths can directly be attributed to this, and that humans are the only species that count, however cancer thrives in an oxygen depleted environment and cancer has a hard time existing at all in an oxygen rich environment, so, the effects of this already have killed many. Other respiratory ailments and diseases have also been rising in frequency to match this lower O2 level, and the effects of this on the Human population itself have already been many. Billions already, I'd say.

Anyway, it is the un-funded mandate to return the sky to 24% and to keep it there.

[panopticon]

The Oxygen Enrichment Program is a group of us who have gone ahead and activated the un-funded and idle mandate to restore the O2 level of the atmosphere to 24% and keep it there.

You don't agree with this Nick, so why should you care what this program is? You're not going to help with it either, so ...

You also don't believe there to be any bad effects from using billions of internal combustion engines on a daily basis, and you refuse to believe that gauges do not lie: they are incapable of lying. People lie all the time, and, they are completely capable of lying all the time.

And all the while, the real effects from using so many ICE's is ripping through The Animal Kingdom today, as the knowledge of its' known effects has succumbed to people who lie all the time.

You may even believe that no human deaths can directly be attributed to this, and that humans are the only species that count, however cancer thrives in an oxygen depleted environment and cancer has a hard time existing at all in an oxygen rich environment, so, the effects of this already have killed many. Other respiratory ailments and diseases have also been rising in frequency to match this lower O2 level, and the effects of this on the Human population itself have already been many. Billions already, I'd say.

Anyway, it is the un-funded mandate to return the sky to 24% and to keep it there.

Sounds like an interesting project.

Can someone ask how Earthlink's group is generating the oxygen please.

-- Pan

[Nick Matkin]

The Oxygen Enrichment Program is a group of us who have gone ahead and activated the un-funded and idle mandate to restore the O2 level of the atmosphere to 24% and keep it there.

Well that's something, but how does it work? That's what would be interesting, whether I believe your oxygen figures or not. Others reading this thread now and in future may believe you, so for them how about posting more details of this program? You may get some support.


You also don't believe there to be any bad effects from using billions of internal combustion engines [ICEs] on a daily basis, and you refuse to believe that gauges do not lie: they are incapable of lying. People lie all the time, and, they are completely capable of lying all the time.

I've NEVER said billions of ICEs have no bad effects. They obviously do as does burning any fossil fuel for any reason. But there is simply no accurate data saying the oxygen decline as as steep as you are claiming. If it were, every school and university lab doing routine demos for students would notice this decline. It's simply ridiculous to suggest a change so significant that you can detect it yourself with a 'gauge' has gone unnoticed by tens of thousands of labs all over the world.

Why don't you ask some universities to confirm your findings? Universities are full of students keen to disprove what they've been told by their lecturers and books, or they certainly used to be! So, will you do that? Surely you want your findings to be independently corroborated so all us nay-sayers will have to eat our words.

As for your statement about gauges not lying, as engineers we both know that's untrue. Gauges can be badly calibrated, badly placed, incorrectly read, of an incorrect type, reading the wrong parameter, incorrectly interpreted or just plain broken!

Nick

[WhiteFeather]

On this one I'm going by the only lighthouse I know to be true, because I maintain it myself. I am going by an eye witness account on this one, and it is based entirely on that which I used to see with my own eyes and no longer see now with my own eyes, and that which I used to hear with my own ears and no longer hear now with my own ears.
And, pray tell, what did your eyes once see, but no longer see ?


Words can not bring back the Butterflies.
Ah - you used to see butterflies, where now you see none?

Ok - that doesn't surprise me greatly, given the variety of toxins that we humans have been putting into the air, earth and water of late.

My analysis of how small was the change in the oxygen to nitrogen ratio at the Mauna Lao Observatory does not contradict your observations of an absence of butterflies.

Both could easily be true.

True. I have seen the least amount of Monarchs this past summer migrating back South, to Mexico I suppose. We have a path that the Monarch butterflies travel here in NY.

[Earthlink]

In the spring summer and fall of 2007, I had a friend that I would see first thing every morning. On the back of the house there is a smoking room that is a summer room that I would go to first thing every morning and have a coffee and a cigarette to start my day. There is a sliding glass door and a screen (not needed these days) door, and usually the glass door was open, and the screen door was closed. Early in the spring of that year, when I went out there, there was one of those big fluffy bumble bees, bouncing on the glass door beside the screen door, and my first reaction was to just let it out. When I went near it, its' stinger kept coming out and then going back in, and it made what I would call angry buzzing noise. I looked at the stinger again, and then went and got a face cloth from the bathroom, and used it to trap the bee, and then opened the screen door and unfolded it and let it go outside.

It kind of hovered around the door briefly, and then flew off.

The next morning, it was back.

Still angry buzzing and stinger action, so, I used the face cloth that was now on the table in the back room again, and got it out. This time it hovered around the door a little longer, and seemed to check me out.

Next day: back again. This time, I just put my hand out, beside it, and said "you're just going to have to trust me on this one" and, it got on. As I stood up, it flew off, and landed back on the glass side again, but when I put my hand out the second time, it got on and stayed on until I stood up and opened the screen door.

Over time, I would find it sitting by the handle of the screen door each morning, or even on the handle, and it became my morning ritual to have him, or her, I don't know, get on my finger and patiently wait for me to open the door and stick my hand out, and even then, he'd hang out on my finger sometimes ... just because he wanted to, for a short while, and then fly off. I also talked to him like he was another person, and, he would respond.

I'd walk into the room, he's on the handle. I set my coffee down while saying "all right, you ready to get out there and take on that world?" bzzzzt. "alright my little flight enabled buzz lightyear, board the launch pad (my finger)" bzzzzt.

Anyway, every creature I've ever encountered has displayed affinity towards me, Bees and Ladybugs included. No wild creature will see you immediately as a long lost friend, however, in time, they all will.

And, uh, this picture is by no means a complete picture of all the Butterfly types (yes, I hate it that our culture allows half truths and inconsistencies) it's just the best one I found. (hey, we had a hundred years of the dark ages back in the 1500's ... can we have 100 years of light ages now, to restore the balance???)

I showed this picture to my father, because he said upon seeing a Monarch that everything must be fine, to try to get him to see more than what was just present. Personally I think it is a mistake for Humans to not go and hang out with other species, just because. They are all, every one of them, individual sentient beings, and, they will all hang out with you and get to know you in time.

I also told my father how apple trees are not even capable of having their own children, at all, ever, without the aid of first any of the winged insects, for the pollination between the male and female apple trees, and second some Deer or Moose then needs to come and eat the apples and drop the seed somewhere away from the base of the tree itself. Without a large co-operative base amongst all the species here, none of us would be here.

I have also learned very much in this lifetime about energy and life itself, and how I don't even need to use words between the Bee and me, it's just, sound is a nice soothing thing amongst us, with many meanings, and we use it too. the energy stream itself is first off massive and all encompassing, and second it is everywhere all the time and it is lived in by everything all the time and just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it is not a major force unto itself.

What may have been thought once to be inert, static, mindless energy, is in fact a very real part of the living sphere itself, on many levels. We all, all life, have large energy/magnetic fields around ourselves, and it is the Nature of phrases like 'being in tune'

If you get any opportunity to go hang out in the energy streams in nature, do it again, and this time be mindful of all the minds that are around you. Everything you see there, every plant and insect and animal, is mindful, and will be your friend.

[TargeT]

Just remember:

You are not a white knight just by taking on guilt from actions you think may be causing issues.


for every cause that tries to guilt people out of action there will be a contention point, blaming ICE (internal combustion engines) for dropping the global 02 levels is a bit narcissistic and egotistical... we aren't THAT important.

the next time you think you are having a big impact on this planet, try moving around under your own power for 72 hours (no car, no bike, no elevator); remembering how large this planet is helps put things back into perspective.


Our role does matter, but it is the (or even "a") major player on this planet, we are FAR behind the sun and the many other influences that eclipse our own impact.

[Earthlink]

ahh yes ... the energy stream, and all that it does contain. someone said once recently that there will be no more riding of horses when there are no more horses left to ride. that's what I like about the energy stream: everything's there.

[Earthlink]

... a new title for me: horse rancher! hahahahahaha

rest assured, the only title I'm interested in is the one I was born to have. Engineer: dictionary definition : ) If I have aspirations, it would be to be the Chief Engineer, not indefinitely, I want to live my own life, but long enough to reset the controls, for, it would seem to me at this point that someone has set the controls of our ship to the heart of the sun, and that we are all, today, effectively being terminally shot from the grave.

[Earthlink]

So Nick, in the article, The End of the Animal Kingdom, solutions are talked about at the end. Energy really is a lot more than what many believe it to be. Powerful, that's what it is. We can use industrial compressors to isolate and collect the oxides in the sky. When compressors are used, different gasses in the atmosphere will turn to liquid at different pressures. Bring a set volume of air to a certain pressure, and then collect the liquid in the bottom of the tank, and repeat. By using electricity again here we can then separate the carbon from all the CO and CO2, the sulphur from all the SO and SO2, and nitrogen from all the NO and NO2. All of the O's in that will revert to being O2, and will be released to the sky along with the nitrogen, and the carbon and sulphur can be sold, I guess, or used.

This will solve the problem of it being so windy all the time. It is more windy these days because we have literally taken more oil from the ground than there is possibly water on Earth, and turned it all into hot oxides and released all of it to the sky. Our atmosphere is like a balloon around our world, and it is being stretched to the max now with all these addition gasses we have made. That and the warmer air also holds more moisture and moves quicker too.

Anyway, the compressor action has to happen, and the separation of the elements currently tied up as oxides and in the sky is included in this mandate. Before that, we should begin immediately using the spinning reserves of electricity from every grid to separate water into oxygen and hydrogen and just release both of those gasses into the sky. This will be the thrust of the mandate, to bring the O2 level back to 24, possibly even 25, we can decide when we get there, and in any event, this is that time in our history here where we build what we need to regulate the composition of the sky. We backed ourselves into a corner on this, so ... $hit or get off the pot, right?

It is not erroneous for us to be able to clean our sky. As to what this will look like? Concrete swimming pools near power plants with racks of gold plated metal in water, with electricity running through the metal plates. We just keep adding water, and it just keeps bubbling away. I'm pretty sure this could be done within one calendar year using just the existing hydro dams. They all have lots of spinning reserve. And water. And we should be able to see at least 21, possibly 22, relatively quickly. And, throwing additional hydrogen into the sky is not problematic, the plants are all already equipped to disassemble and reassemble anything to do with hydrogen or carbon. They are not but hydro-carbons. And, ummm ... they may even already, on their own, be willing supporters of this mandate too, but no matter, the plants already have the hydrogen cycle and the oxygen hydrogen water cycle down pat, and are masters at both making water and separating it. Between them and the oxygen and the hydrogen and the water itself, a pretty good balance will be maintained indefinitely, naturally, as has been demonstrated in the past.

There may also be chemical ways of taking compounds apart and recombining them, I'm not certain, but what is certain is that no one person is going to do anything here. The mechanical portions of this, what is above, the existing concept of electrolysis, many people are already aware of, and it does work just as it is, and it may end up being the primary work horse in enriching the sky. A team put together specifically to deal with this will be open to any and all knowledge that can speed it up, certainly.

[panopticon]

The Oxygen Enrichment Program is a group of us who have gone ahead and activated the un-funded and idle mandate to restore the O2 level of the atmosphere to 24% and keep it there.

Well that's something, but how does it work? That's what would be interesting, whether I believe your oxygen figures or not. Others reading this thread now and in future may believe you, so for them how about posting more details of this program? You may get some support.


You also don't believe there to be any bad effects from using billions of internal combustion engines [ICEs] on a daily basis, and you refuse to believe that gauges do not lie: they are incapable of lying. People lie all the time, and, they are completely capable of lying all the time.

I've NEVER said billions of ICEs have no bad effects. They obviously do as does burning any fossil fuel for any reason. But there is simply no accurate data saying the oxygen decline as as steep as you are claiming. If it were, every school and university lab doing routine demos for students would notice this decline. It's simply ridiculous to suggest a change so significant that you can detect it yourself with a 'gauge' has gone unnoticed by tens of thousands of labs all over the world.

Why don't you ask some universities to confirm your findings? Universities are full of students keen to disprove what they've been told by their lecturers and books, or they certainly used to be! So, will you do that? Surely you want your findings to be independently corroborated so all us nay-sayers will have to eat our words.

As for your statement about gauges not lying, as engineers we both know that's untrue. Gauges can be badly calibrated, badly placed, incorrectly read, of an incorrect type, reading the wrong parameter, incorrectly interpreted or just plain broken!

Nick

Excellent question and very good points Nick.

I'm really interested in the process that Earthlink is proposing to increase the planets atmospheric oxygen content by 3%+

Just a quick "back of the napkin" gives an indication of what that means:

Oxygen in Atmosphere:
Volume : Mass
20.95% : 23.20% --> Current (figures are conservative according to Earthlink)
24.00% : 26.58% --> Proposed

26.58% by mass would mean an increase of more than 3%.

Current mass of Oxygen in atmosphere:
1.19x10^15 ton (metric)

Increase of 3% would mean adding 3.57x10^13 ton to the atmosphere.

That's 3,570,000,000,000 ton of oxygen.

Hence why I personally am interested in the process proposed.

H2O through some form of electrolysis means a lot of electricity needed and hydrogen to be stored.

Maybe some form of separation of carbon from oxygen but I don't know how of what is being proposed.

That is why I personally keep asking the question.

What is the process proposed?

-- Pan

Update:

Finally after days of questioning Earthlink has provided his proposed process he says he is using.

[panopticon]

So working on my previous figures (which are really at best guesstimates).

Using present Air Separation Unit technology...

The maximum amount of oxygen that can be produced is 3000 metric ton per day.

So 3000 ton per day means 1,190,000,000 days for 1 machine or 3,260,270 years.

So increasing the number of machine for completion in a decade (under perfect conditions and ignoring all other possible factors):

326,027 machines.

The above is a very conservative number based on napkin calculations.

Even if the process output could be doubled that would still be over 150,000 machines required for a decade.

I've not taken into consideration storage requirements of liquid hydrogen, nitrogen etc

Nor the possibility of a decrease in photosynthesis in some plants (ie less oxygen production/growth) in an oxygen enriched atmosphere.[Beerling et al did a really interesting study in 1998 (try here (http://libgen.in/scimag/get.php?doi=10.2307%2F56581)) which showed how complex the interrelationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the air is on plants. Increased oxygen decreases growth (while could possibly be off-set by increasing carbon dioxide levels). Increased oxygen levels increase photorespiration which decreases a plants O2 production (actually producing CO2 instead)... Yeah, like a Facebook relationship status report: It's complicated]

Nor the greater likelihood of hotter wildfires burning more bush and decreasing Oxygen levels due to burns.

They are just a few things that came to mind.

Remember while this is "doable" the question needs to be asked does it need to be done.

Given all the evidence that is contrary to Earthlink's alleged observations it's my view the answer is no.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

For those interested here's a glossy pamphlet I came across explaining the Cryogenic ASU tech and a bit of data. I found it really interesting as the tech has advanced a lot since I last looked a decade back (2.2mb pdf):
http://www.linde-engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/AS.B1EN%201113%20-%20%26AA_History_.layout19_4353.pdf

For those after less detail just explanation (with pictures :) ) I think you'll find this one much better (649 kb pdf):
http://www.messergroup.cn/Products/down/LZAEnglisch.pdf

Seems similar to the process proposed by Earthlink.

Not sure how he proposes to separate CO2 into C & O2 in a way that isn't self defeating.

Guess I'll have to wait for him to explain. :twitch:

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

<--- master electrician, master refrigeration mechanic. great skill to have, but not easy to get. first I had to be a master rock picker, for areas where sod was going to be put down, and also a master dirt mover, where I mastered the spade and wheelbarrow : ) if you can master both of these before the age of 5, you can then move on. hahaha

[Earthlink]

This is for Pan. Fear no art, and you fear no reflection.

And no, I do not think that the composition of the atmosphere fits in with the master plan to reduce the Human population to 500 million. What is happening in the atmosphere would never have been agreed upon, would all of the details of it had ever been revealed to all involved. If anyone says this is on purpose and a part of the plan, they made that up. They don't want to look like they are not in control and well aware of everything.

For the most part, this is an unforeseen negative consequence, and if anyone knew of this ahead of time, they didn't share that information. What is certain, is that everyone who started the fossil industrial complex has been dead now for over 100 years.

This is the band 'incubus', with their song 'warning'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPlkmYaEQs

[panopticon]

<--- Permaculturist. Motorcyclist, Digger of holes, Builder with rock, Drinker of libations, Dancer with Birds, Jester.
(No peacocks were harmed in the making of this post :cantina:)

Be warned, if you suffer from Numerophobia or Arithmophobia turn away now!

You have been warned!

####

I love doing thought experiments so I was havin' myself a sits and thinks when a few of my smugly associates did appear and we gots a talking and eventually we looked at the figures, stats, costs and benefits of this undertaking.

Amazing what Permies know and natter about when they get together. Oh and it turns out I buggered up one conversion and left off a bloody zero! :sorry:

Here's where we went (remember drinkie poohs were involved :cheers: so if someone can check our figures that would be excellent).

First off I'd like to thank Earthlink for bringing his hypothesis to our attention.

While I personally disagree with his hypothesis on oxygen depletion (and alleged coverup of this) it's been really interesting examining it in some detail. Especially the viability of using Cryogenic Air Separation Units as a means of increasing the oxygen content of the atmosphere 3% by volume. That was really cool (bad pun intended).

So here's what we came up with after a few brews and lots of laughter at each other... :cool:

Oxygen mass increase

Volume : Mass
20.95% : 23.20%
24.00% : 26.58%

The above was done as a straight ratio to calculate the 26.58% mass increase (hence the rounding down to 3% for both ease and to be conservative). Remember that according to Earthlink the starting volume is much lower than the 20.95% used here so the mass % would actually be much larger (Earthlink hasn't shared any data so I can't calculate the required mass using the figures his hypothesis is based on).

26.58% by mass would mean an increase of 3+%

The Earths air has a total of 1.19 x 10^21 g O2

That's 1.19 x10^15 Ton of O2

3% of that is:
3.57x10^13 Ton

Last time I left a zero off here so that means the required O2 would be:
35,700,000,000,000 Ton

Using this converter (http://hiq.linde-gas.com/en/specialty_gases/gas_units_converter.html) that Tug found we can easily work out the Nm3 (which I'll later use for Kw:Ton conversion to see electrical consumption):

26,701,570,680,628,000 Nm3

I'll just round that to 3 sig fig so it's easier:
2.67x10^16 Nm3

Ok so where does that leave us now?

There are Cryogen units that can produce 4000 T of O2 per day (larger output capacities are reported but they appear to be units [referred to as "trains"] joined together, not actual increased production from one unit).

So let's look at some theoretical figures that use the best case power consumption to production ratio of 0.28 Kw/Nm3 (sourced here (http://engj.org/index.php/ej/article/viewFile/400/330)).

So a machine producing 4000 Ton per day is producing 4,000,000 kg per day.

4,000,000 kg per day is equivalent to 2,991,772 Nm3

2,991,772 Nm3 at optimum electrical consumption (0.28Kw/Nm3) means that per day the unit would be consuming:
837,696 Kilowatts = 837.7 Megawatts

Remember, that's per day for one machine.

Convert that to MWh (ie divide by 24):
34.9MWh

Put that into the old grey cells for later...

So how many machines are needed to achieve a 3% increase?

Well let's ignore all the things I've written about before about plant respiration, oxygen usage/loss, deforestation, extended agricultural land, bush fires etc. Instead we'll say that any increase is a real increase that wont be offset in any way manner or form by the natural system (which includes human activities btw).

Above I found that a 3% increase was equivalent to a 26,701,570,680,628,000 Nm3 increase of Oxygen.

Also, one 4000 Ton per day cryogenic ASU produces 2,991,000 Nm3 per day.

So I go bad and divide one by the other to produce the ridiculously large number of machines needed to do the task in one day:
8,927,305,477

Ok so I then divide that by 365 for number of machine required to do that in a year:
24,458,371

And by ten for a decade:
2,445,837

And a Century:
244,584

Ok, so I'll use the decade figure because that's a reasonable time frame for a start.

2,445,837 machines each consuming 34.9 MW electricity per hour means they'd require:
85,359,711 MW per hour (85.36TW per hour)

Well that presents a bit of a problem.

At the moment the entire planet on average is using 13.5TW per hour so we'd need to increase electricity production by over 6 times the amount used world wide today just for the Oxygen production...

Let's change that to the Century figure of 244,584 machines.

Their energy use per hour would be 244,584 by 34.9 = 8,535,971 MW (8.53 TW).

That's only 63% of the worlds current consumption (I know, I'm thinking of calling the business PunsRus) and if we divert all electricity in US & Canada that should about do it.

I say let's do it.

What's the worst that could happen?

Oh wait... ;)
BTW, I mean it about someone checking these figures. Together we're a bunch of clever sods :humble: but there were some bits and pieces where we assumed certain things to do with electromagical thingamies that may have been a tad ambitious (as Mick said: MWh sounds like the number of MW used in an hour. Let's drink to that! Can someone get that bloody butterfly away from my beer! :) ).

Maybe the collective wisdom at Avalon can show us the egg so we can remove it. :high5:

-- Pan

PS Online reference say world consumption os 13.5TW per hour.
When we went looking (here (http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=44&pid=44&aid=1&cid=regions&syid=2010&eyid=2010&unit=QBTU)) we converted from quad to TW and eventually came to 16.955 TW used per hour.

That just means that the final guesstimates in relation to quantity of world electrickery usage the ASUs would consume in the decade scenario would be 5 times the quantity currently and in the century scenario just over 50%.

It's been fun doing this and again if there's some errors point them out so I can let the guys know we can't do rifmatrickery. :)

[Nick Matkin]

@ Pan.

Bloody excellent mate! We need more blokes/lasses like you to thoroughly de-construct some of the wacky theories floating about on the forum.

Unfortunately when this happens, the clear-thinking rationalists sometimes get accused of being shills, trolls or disinfo agents, or that the science they use is discredited, or doesn't take into account the apparently suppressed work of Tesla, Eric Dollard, etc. I suspect that's why most grounded scientists don't bother posting; their data is either not understood or just dismissed so they don't waste their time.

Nevertheless, a bit more science in a forum where "science and spirituality meet" may elevate and broaden the discussions here, and give the forum a bit of balance, which can only be a good thing...

Nick

[Earthlink]

ummm ... Pan, those liquification (sp?) numbers you are working with above are from people and processes that are making liquid oxygen, and, they are taking that oxygen FROM the sky.

That won't help us. We need it to be taken from the CO, CO2, NO, NO2, SO and SO2 and even the lesser amounts of HO and H2O2, all oxides, and all produced in ICE's, which will involve pressurization and liquification of all of those oxides, and then, we need to separate the O's from them all.

And, use electrolysis and water. Both should be started simultaneously, and run concurrently. We've got a hundred years of being slackers on this issue to catch up to.

And you thought you had a handle on this? I'm sorry, it must look to you now like your task is to fill in the grand canyon, and all you have is a shovel, and your own ability to throw dirt.

I view it the same way. That's what happens if you allow yourself to get 100 years behind on something ...

However, I do know much about electricity, and can generate it in large quantities in 2 ways that do not involve burning more fuel to do so. One is to remake the common induction electric motor so that it is what it used to be, a dynamo, those things that have been powering lighthouses since the 1500's, and the other is simply that if you drill down anywhere, at around 7000 metres, the temperature of the ground is going to be above 300 degrees celsius, or, three times the boiling point of water. Remember, oil rigs can drill 35 km at a time, and, frequently do. They also angle drill, so, no they don't go 35 km straight down, they go down to the oil deposit and then go laterally into it.

And one other thing about dynamos, if you have 2 of them, they can ping pong between the two of them and generate almost a limitless flow of current.

[Nick Matkin]

And one other thing about dynamos, if you have 2 of them, they can ping pong between the two of them and generate almost a limitless flow of current.

Yup. That's why they are used all over the place to generate "almost a limitless flow of current".

Er... like where?

[Earthlink]

I thought you were an electrical engineer Nick. Go look up 'dynamo and self exciter'

In any event, Tesla was not incorrect when he stated that "coal oil and gas have never been needed"

[Nick Matkin]

I thought you were an electrical engineer Nick. Go look up 'dynamo and self exciter'

Yes, the dynamo generates current to magnetise its own field coils. But it doesn't get this energy out of thin air as you must surely know. It needs to be turned, using some external force. You are making it sound like some form of free energy magically conjured up, and if it were that easy we simply wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.

Never mind about all the free energy conspiracy stuff. If it were that easy it would be completely impossible to keep secret.

[Earthlink]

huh? what kept secret from who? you know, i've heard that conspiracy talk from others when discussing dynamo's before. it's 50 50 i guess, but it just depends on your education or teacher, i suppose, and which books they used? here in canada we were taught all of the methods for everything, with of course more attention to what is in use, and i learned all the different generation types in the high school electrical construction course. i know other engineer types who know all about what i said above there, and we can talk about dynamos like they are normal. as you're probably aware, the leaders of industry decided a long time ago to go with coal/oil/gas and induction electric motors, and those are what exist all around you now. dynamos have been relegated to specific uses, like lighthouses, and some top end items, like clocks that never need winding or batteries, maybe some expensive flashlights and stuff too, i saw a top end catalogue once with a few items in it that used them. small ones. you will pay much more for these items than if you had bought a lifetime supply of batteries, and i guess, under those terms, you can buy them.

anyways, i would also call this a specific use, and myself personally i'm not against using them here, for this.

[Earthlink]

ok, this is me bragging now hahahaha and I suppose a shout out to any here reading this who also may be part of the 2% HVAC-R brotherhoods : ) A lifetime of dirty hands, and a mind full of knowledge!

:hail:

I bow in grace before you, brothers.

[panopticon]

@ Pan.

Bloody excellent mate! We need more blokes/lasses like you to thoroughly de-construct some of the wacky theories floating about on the forum.

Unfortunately when this happens, the clear-thinking rationalists sometimes get accused of being shills, trolls or disinfo agents, or that the science they use is discredited, or doesn't take into account the apparently suppressed work of Tesla, Eric Dollard, etc. I suspect that's why most grounded scientists don't bother posting; their data is either not understood or just dismissed so they don't waste their time.

Nevertheless, a bit more science in a forum where "science and spirituality meet" may elevate and broaden the discussions here, and give the forum a bit of balance, which can only be a good thing...

Nick

No worries bloke.

It was just a quiet Saturday round here.

Gave us something to natter about other than bloody grasshoppers eating the crops.

-- Pan

[panopticon]

ummm ... Pan, those liquification (sp?) numbers you are working with above are from people and processes that are making liquid oxygen, and, they are taking that oxygen FROM the sky.

That won't help us. We need it to be taken from the CO, CO2, NO, NO2, SO and SO2 and even the lesser amounts of HO and H2O2, all oxides, and all produced in ICE's, which will involve pressurization and liquification of all of those oxides, and then, we need to separate the O's from them all.

And, use electrolysis and water. Both should be started simultaneously, and run concurrently. We've got a hundred years of being slackers on this issue to catch up to.
...
However, I do know much about electricity, and can generate it in large quantities in 2 ways that do not involve burning more fuel to do so. One is to remake the common induction electric motor so that it is what it used to be, a dynamo, those things that have been powering lighthouses since the 1500's, and the other is simply that if you drill down anywhere, at around 7000 metres, the temperature of the ground is going to be above 300 degrees celsius, or, three times the boiling point of water. Remember, oil rigs can drill 35 km at a time, and, frequently do. They also angle drill, so, no they don't go 35 km straight down, they go down to the oil deposit and then go laterally into it.

And one other thing about dynamos, if you have 2 of them, they can ping pong between the two of them and generate almost a limitless flow of current.

No worries bloke.

Thanks for the heads up.

I've got quite a few questions for you that we're interested in here in the antipodes. :)

Before anything else.

What is the varying pressures to separate air into liquid O2, N2, CO2, NO2 & SO2 at room temperature (if you reckon cooling/heating of the air would be needed please include that data as well).

Would take me a while to look all that up and as you're the expert I reckon you'd know these off the top of your head. References would be nice though.

After that I've got all sorts of other questions about the procedure, system design, chemical processes etc you're using.

Thanks for your patience with me.

-- Pan

PS If you want just give the optimised figures for the above that your system operates at.

That way we have a starting point for further discussion on the processes used.

[panopticon]

While I wait for a response to my question I thought I'd mention a few CO2 air extraction technologies.

There is real hard evidence that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

I know that its taboo at Avalon to talk about anthropogenic climate change so I wont. :P

However, CO2 is linked to climate change by almost everyone and there are ways of removing CO2 from the air that are already known...

Look at Peter Eisenberger's Global Thermostat (http://globalthermostat.com/team/peter-eisenberger/).

Interesting video here on it https://vimeo.com/106444450 (I can't seem to get the vimeo video to load in the forum software).

It looks like good tech that appears to be able to remove CO2 from air for later sequestration (or industrial use).

If there's a way to separate the carbon and oxygen that isn't too energy intensive then maybe he'd be interested.

Maybe Klaus Lackner (http://engineering.asu.edu/cnce/klaus-lackner/) (really interesting paper from 2009 here (http://libgen.in/scimag/get.php?doi=10.1140%2Fepjst%2Fe2009-01150-3)) or the guys & gals at Carbon Engineering (http://carbonengineering.com/) might be interested in hearing about it to.

Actually Carbon Engineering is a Canadian engineering business working on the air capture of CO2, so maybe they'd be interested in hearing Earthlink's oxygen depletion hypothesis out:
GkEAA7VnyhE
Anyway...

There are lots of people working on CO2 air extraction technology.

That's because it would be incredibly lucrative and supply a much needed resource (CO2) all while lowering CO2 in the atmosphere.

Looks win win to me.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Well, thanks for this Pan. Just remember a couple of things first, to help yourself stay grounded and on target. I didn't know that anthropogenic warming was taboo here, for starters, however I don't find it surprising. The closer one gets to the actual industry leaders or the shareholder groups who profit from them, the more the world looks like the Orwell one, where our primary base formula for everything is one that looks like 2+2=5.

I myself remain completely disheartened by these realities.

Anyway, existing near a base formula like that is heart wrenching, yet, one must continue, so, you adapt. You speak that language sometimes when you have to, but you never forget what is real either.

And existing like this has produced a sub class unto itself. The ones who use the base formula such as this, like to have people around them who speak the same way. I swear there have been seminars and events that I have been to where I walked away thinking I was just at a 2+2=5 T-shirt wearing conference, and the more each person revelled in the absolute truth to this falseness, the better they performed at the event.

So, every one of those CO2's in the literature you provided above, used to be an O2. O2's are the things I think we need more of. Did I say think?, No, I know we need more of them. And also, like I said a moment ago, over the last 20 or so years there have formed many break away groups in high places who all are T-shirt wearing apostles to a falsehood. This is why carbon sequestering and a spat of other, what I would call useless and diversionary, issues are now in our lexicon too. To begin with, on this carbon sequestering, there are 8 primary oxides made in an ICE, CO2 being just one of them, so, even if we address CO2 in the fullest, we will fail, because CO2 is just one gas out of 8, and where we think we make progress doing it that way will only end up leaving us 7 times further behind than we thought we were going to be!

Anyway, I turned 50 last november. I just don't go along with the stupid any more, not even just to be polite. I just laugh at them now. It's so easy to do, without them even knowing. The reason they are in the stupid group is because they didn't have a good base knowledge of any of the sciences to begin with, so, I find it too easy to use science to have them make themselves look really really dumb. And that is their game, not mine. They revel in laughing at what they call "libtards" and "environmental whacko's" and all that, to elevate themselves, however they are propping themselves up on false knowledge, which has been supplied to them from a third party.

Yes, there is money in dry ice and CO2 and it can be used in certain manufacturing, the thing is, how much money will any one make when the tax base are ALL dead?

Sometimes I think that is the goal. All dead. Everything and everyone dies, so that whoever is in charge can claim victory.

Anyway, if you really are trying, I thank you.

[Earthlink]

Here's another good example of what's going on and how and why things would even get this far into oblivion: in all of the countries in the english speaking world now, look at all the members of government. what was their profession? lawyer, lawyer, lawyer, businessman, lawyer lawyer lawyer. where are the scientists? where are the engineers? at least 20 years of legislature being passed by people who have no clue as to what they are doing. I told a member of parliament from canada one time that we looked really closely at the sky, and do you know when you look at individual molecules, and how the world of small things doesn't look like the world out here? well, it is an interesting world down there in 'smallville' and as it turns out, half of what is in the sky, when magnified, looks like little pink elephants, and the other half of what is in the sky looks like little blue unicorns.

he had no choice but to say "ok", because he does not know better, and as far as I know, he believes to this day that that's what the molecules in the sky look like magnified.

[Earthlink]

This is thinking from the youth today:

"We need a holo-deck. You know, the holographic deck from Star Trek The Next Generation? Yeah, one of those, and then we need to fool the warmongers in this world into going in there, where they can live out the rest of their lives believing that nothing has changed and bombs and carnage continue under their direction for the rest of their life, while the rest of us can then get on with the immense work of cleaning up this massive mess that has been made here over the last at least 100 years ..."

[panopticon]

8 primary oxides made in an ICE

Seems you missed my question above.

So, once again.

What are the varying pressures you use in your machine at the moment to separate collected air into liquid CO2, CO, N2O, N2O4, NO, NO2, SO2, SO3, HO, H2O2 (when using cooling/heating of the collected air please include that data as well).

Could you also provide what you view as the optimum pressure/temperature combination needed for oxygen and nitrogen to be turned to a liquid (just as a reference).

That seems like a good starting point for further discussion on the processes you use.

-- Pan

[Earthlink]

Fie, this goes here:

[Earthlink]

So glad for the people I know, and yeah, it is true that animals do not live well or very long in captivity when compared to their natural life. Going into DUMBS or underground cities isn't going to pan out for any involved.

It's a f@cking stupid idea.

So many f@cking stupid ideas.

Someone said the other day that we lost the separation between two distinct groups, and that one of the two ixnayed the other. The group who print money, and/or coin coins, is one group, and deciding what to do with the money, is another group, and the two should not be the same.

In any event, just go outside. Please. Anywhere, and behold the realities of OPINION.

[Nick Matkin]

So... how has your project to increase the oxygen level of earth's atmosphere been progressing over the past few months?

Have you run the details of your proposals past any fire-fighters? What did they have to say about the effects of increased oxygen in the atmosphere and its effects on combustion?

Nick

[Carmody]

8 primary oxides made in an ICE

Seems you missed my question above.

So, once again.

What are the varying pressures you use in your machine at the moment to separate collected air into liquid CO2, CO, N2O, N2O4, NO, NO2, SO2, SO3, HO, H2O2 (when using cooling/heating of the collected air please include that data as well).

Could you also provide what you view as the optimum pressure/temperature combination needed for oxygen and nitrogen to be turned to a liquid (just as a reference).

That seems like a good starting point for further discussion on the processes you use.

-- Pan

Secondary function, is an enabler. a grease for the desired function, if you will.

This would be the use of resonance in the given pressure chamber, if one is going to try and use a pressurized vessel.

'Open the gate wide', would be the analogy.

[Earthlink]

I was in the volunteer fire department where I lived when I was younger, Nick. Also, considering that there already exists things like oxygen therapy, you know, increased amounts of oxygen either to individuals or areas, I do believe that most firefighters and/or anyone else familiar with this element would laugh at what you just said.

Pan, we already bottle both oxygen and nitrogen. Not rocket science there buddy.

Carmody: I truly have no idea what you just said.

[Redstar Kachina]

..........

[Nick Matkin]

I was in the volunteer fire department where I lived when I was younger, Nick. Also, considering that there already exists things like oxygen therapy, you know, increased amounts of oxygen either to individuals or areas, I do believe that most firefighters and/or anyone else familiar with this element would laugh at what you just said.

In that case could you ask one? My uncle was a fireman and he told me that oxygen-enriched atmospheres have at least three dangerous qualities when it come to fire:

1) Many materials that would not normally burn will do.

2) The heat in such a fire is greater.

3) They are much harder to put out with water.

Was he wrong and if so why?

Nick

¤=[Post Update]=¤


There are ships in the sky that are cloaked that generate oxygen, which has bought us as much time as it has, but starting in September, the Great Transition begins in earnest, resulting in a significant drop in population over the next five years.

What...? How...? When - exactly (or even approximately!)

[Earthlink]

Really?

All the people on Earth right now experiencing dizzyness, vertigo and other pre-cursors to Hypoxia would wonder where your uncle even got those ridiculous ideas from.

Our O2 level was, the first time we checked it, roughy right on a quarter of the non-water portion of our atmosphere, and that would be, as a percentage, right around 25%. The only reason people who work in any of the applied sciences today say oxygen enrichment is now required, is that the prolific burning of fossil fuels has lowered it from that starting point, to the dangerously low point today which is, depending on elevation, lower than 20% everywhere now, and, things are dying from this, have died from this, and continue to die from this. Many high elevation places on Earth today have already been rendered off limits to our species, because of this.

Our atmosphere bears the legal definition now as being uninhabitable, which became a reality in the very early 2000's, perhaps even the first week of the year 2000.

Is that not low enough for you buddy?

I don't know what you're advocating, and nor do I care.

It's not your stage, and, the decision to fade out fossil fuel burning has already been made. Not soon enough IMHO, but at least I'm still upright and breathing, for now.

Tell me, which species here do you suppose you are helping with these type of banal questions?

Also, I just came to this conclusion: I'm not even going to discuss this with you ever again until you do some due diligence, and get a newspaper with todays date, or later, and with that in your hand and in the foreground, get me a picture of a Grasshopper, a Deer Fly, a Horse Fly or a Barn Swallow.

May even accept a current picture of a Pigeon, though those are kept as livestock by some, and are not completely gone yet.

[Nick Matkin]

All the people on Earth right now experiencing dizzyness, vertigo and other pre-cursors to Hypoxia would wonder where your uncle even got those ridiculous ideas from.

You don't say? Any source for that? I know no one who is suffering from hypoxia - although on the sun thread there are a few who attribute those sorts of symptoms to solar flares...

Industrial facilities that have increased oxygen for industrial processes in specific zones is where he got that idea from.


Our O2 level was, the first time we checked it, roughy right on a quarter of the non-water portion of our atmosphere, and that would be, as a percentage, right around 25%. The only reason people who work in any of the applied sciences today say oxygen enrichment is now required, is that the prolific burning of fossil fuels has lowered it from that starting point, to the dangerously low point today which is, depending on elevation, lower than 20% everywhere now, and, things are dying from this, have died from this, and continue to die from this. Many high elevation places on Earth today have already been rendered off limits to our species, because of this.


Again, where is the source for this?

Elevation has nothing to do with oxygen percentage of the atmosphere - we've established that earlier in the thread. It's the density of the atmosphere that makes breathing difficult at altitude.



Is that not low enough for you buddy?

I don't know what you're advocating, and nor do I care.

It's not your stage, and, the decision to fade out fossil fuel burning has already been made. Not soon enough IMHO, but at least I'm still upright and breathing, for now.

Tell me, which species here do you suppose you are helping with these type of banal questions?

Anyway, back to my original question from #149; how much extra oxygen have you generated by now?

To make any measurable difference you'll need to add millions if not billions of tons of oxygen into the atmosphere. Where are you going to get that much raw material? Presumably water, but what are you going to do with all the released hydrogen? You could sell it as a fuel, er... but then it would recombine with oxygen and you're back to square one!

Maybe you have another method, but in any case where does all the energy come from to make all this oxygen?

[Earthlink]

BIG F@CKING COMPRESSORS, and, LOTS OF THEM.

I'm sorry, but the stark reality of your question begged me for a stark answer. And at the same time, I've no doubts of the capabilities of my species. None.

We have to take complete control of all the gasses in our sky today, as, yesterday we apparently assumed that the future we (us) would do so.

And, if you truly wonder where energy comes from ... at this late date (it comes from wherever we decide to take it from) (on any given day, subject to change) then you'll be forfeiting one of our truly remarkable achievements, and that is to come to understand how elements and compounds combine, detach, and/or recombine, repeatedly through eons of time, which we have come to observe and understand. (energy bonds)

Our understandings collected are actually the reason we say things like "Given enough time, a Hydrogen atom begins to wonder who it is, and where it is going."

And that is that we collectively have amassed great understanding: more daily.

[Nick Matkin]

What a pity Earthlink's account has been deactivated. I really want to know by how much the Earth's atmospheric oxygen percentage has increased through his efforts. I expect the effects of his endeavours are being picked up by labs all over the world by now...