Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[B. W.]

Maybe YOU should double check before to write this kind of message. This is not helping you at all. You are questioning academic stuff when you are not able to understand mathematics learned before the high school.

So you are saying that 1x10^21kj is the same as 1x10^24 joules. I just wanted you to be clear on that.

How come ANG proponents don't draw a correlation between deforestation in the Amazon and Indonesia and the increase in C02 levels for the last 30 years. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Here's a time lapse of amazon deforestation. It's significant:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...a4eb057ba11035

[Genava]

So you are saying that 1x10^21kj is the same as 1x10^24 joules. I just wanted you to be clear on that.

kJ mean kilojoule, it is 10^3 joules https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kilojoule
This is like kilograms and grams. 1 kilogram is 1000 grams. You multiply it by 10^3 (or 1000) to get the grams.

1*10^21 * 1000 = 1*10^24

This is crazy...

[Daruwind]

Going further, you said his math is crap. Well, I'm not a physicist, but you stated that "1x10^21kJ is the same as 1x10^24 Joules" and that doesn't seem to be right. Maybe you should double check your math or maybe give an explanation as to how you arrived at that figure.

Come on? Can you count? Like I mean it really as no offence, seriously the things I wrote down are ....anybody who saw math from bus/train should be able to do it personally. We had such stuff at High School heck not even university...What you are trying to say is that 1+1=3 and that you are believing it. I have no problem with what you believe or not but 1+1=2 not 3.

This lower is common math. This has nothing to do with politics or beliefs.
J = Joules (just in case somebody don´t undertand...)
kJ = "kilo" Joules = 1000 Joules = 1x10^3 J
1x10^21 kJ = (1x10^21) x 1000 J = (1x10^21) x (1x10^3) J = 1x10^(21+3) J = 1x10^24 J
This is not even any kind of formula pure math not even physics...

the article you linked is trying to scare people with fact that nuclear explosion(s) are producing low energy, that is true however there is no comparison with solar energy from Sun. Because as soon you would write it down, it would be obvious that the article is crap.
We can discuss albedo, that places near poles are getting less energy from Sun heck even enviromental conditions..winds, water streams...but those are not part of article. It is claiming that there not enough energy when in reality it is.

tl dr; I have no problem with people believing in God (actually I´m almost Christian myself + nuclear scientist, CERN, LHC, gods particles...such stuff), flat Earth or even Spaghetti Monster BUT you are using argument that 1+1=3, at least discuss albedo or something, don´t oppose math just for sake of opposing.

I´m discussing purely the mathematics here, so for other parts refer to others. Not me.

It reminds me of religious zealotry.

To me it sounds like Schrodingers cat in box. Except it is not about being dead/alive and instead it is either zealous or dumb. But we have no idea till we open it....

[Genava]

First of all you are right in saying that the numbers are staggering, but I'm not the one throwing them around as you claim. That would be the physicist who wrote the article and BTW, he is not getting paid or receiving compensation for stating his views. that's in stark contrast to the ANG folks.

Going further, you said his math is crap. Well, I'm not a physicist, but you stated that "1x10^21kJ is the same as 1x10^24 Joules" and that doesn't seem to be right. Maybe you should double check your math or maybe give an explanation as to how you arrived at that figure.

Additionally, you claim to have great concern for man caused c02 emissions and yet you are completely "unknowledgeable" (that's the nicest way I can say it) about the content of carbon contained in trees. I mentioned previously that the C02 released by slash and burn jungle clearing in the Amazon basin is 15% of all carbon emissions caused by man and that it also represents a significant factor in reducing C02 levels because that missing forest is no longer taking C02 out of the atmosphere. You called it weird.

If you were really interested in taking a logical approach to solving the issue of increased C02 that would be the place to start and yet you completely ignore it.

On a personal note, I've noticed that practically every ANG proponent has an almost religious fervor in their reactions to skeptics. It reminds me of religious zealotry.

What I found weird is your accusation that we are ignoring the deforestation, this is wrong on so many levels:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environ...th-summit-1992
https://wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-in...ent-programme/
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

In SCIENCE: Brazil’s new president has scientists worried. Here’s why.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...ied-here-s-why

And you seem incoherent with the numbers you give from a message to another and you seem incoherent with your position on CO2.

[B. W.]

kJ mean kilojoule, it is 10^3 joules https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kilojoule
This is like kilograms and grams. 1 kilogram is 1000 grams. You multiply it by 10^3 (or 1000) to get the grams.

1*10^21 * 1000 = 1*10^24

This is crazy...

Finally.

Come on? Can you count? Like I mean it really as no offence, seriously the things I wrote down are ....anybody who saw math from bus/train should be able to do it personally. We had such stuff at High School heck not even university...What you are trying to say is that 1+1=3 and that you are believing it. I have no problem with what you believe or not but 1+1=2 not 3.

This lower is common math. This has nothing to do with politics or beliefs.
J = Joules (just in case somebody don´t undertand...)
kJ = "kilo" Joules = 1000 Joules = 1x10^3 J
1x10^21 kJ = (1x10^21) x 1000 J = (1x10^21) x (1x10^3) J = 1x10^(21+3) J = 1x10^24 J
This is not even any kind of formula pure math not even physics...

the article you linked is trying to scare people with fact that nuclear explosion(s) are producing low energy, that is true however there is no comparison with solar energy from Sun. Because as soon you would write it down, it would be obvious that the article is crap.
We can discuss albedo, that places near poles are getting less energy from Sun heck even enviromental conditions..winds, water streams...but those are not part of article. It is claiming that there not enough energy when in reality it is.

tl dr; I have no problem with people believing in God (actually I´m almost Christian myself + nuclear scientist, CERN, LHC, gods particles...such stuff), flat Earth or even Spaghetti Monster BUT you are using argument that 1+1=3, at least discuss albedo or something, don´t oppose math just for sake of opposing.

I´m discussing purely the mathematics here, so for other parts refer to others. Not me.



To me it sounds like Schrodingers cat in box. Except it is not about being dead/alive and instead it is either zealous or dumb. But we have no idea till we open it....

First of all, no offense is taken. Thanks for the nicely done explanation. I do know the difference between the two, btw.

I don't know if I would compare it to Schrodingers cat in a box. I think it is more a matter of priorities. The major effort should be on things that can be done immediately without upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. The direction the ANG people would have us go in is destructive and based on some pretty speculative numbers that have been manipulated (no matter how much it is denied by the ANG people, the evidence it is there). There is no question about the effects of deforestation and that should be where the emphasis is placed.

What I found weird is your accusation that we are ignoring the deforestation, this is wrong on so many levels:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environ...th-summit-1992
https://wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-in...ent-programme/
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

In SCIENCE: Brazil’s new president has scientists worried. Here’s why.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019...ied-here-s-why

And you seem incoherent with the numbers you give from a message to another and you seem incoherent with your position on CO2.

Let me see now, how many times have you mentioned deforestation before I brought it up? And exactly what has been done about it since 1992? It seems to be accelerating.

A little perspective:

https://www.conserve-energy-future.c...tion-facts.php

[Genava]

Let me see now, how many times have you mentioned deforestation before I brought it up? And exactly what has been done about it since 1992? It seems to be accelerating.

Because deforestation is not the main cause of CO2 emissions and climate change. Here the estimations of the fluxes of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, deforestation is among the group "land-use changes":


And it is not accelerating (it is a cumulative figure depending of the time period):

[B. W.]

Because deforestation is not the main cause of CO2 emissions and climate change. Here the estimations of the fluxes of CO2 from anthropogenic sources, deforestation is among the group "land-use changes":


And it is not accelerating (it is a cumulative figure depending of the time period):

And that's just not a good reason. Deforestation could be stopped immediately for far less economic cost. And as I stated earlier, the forests take out more carbon than they release oxygen.

I don't know what numbers the chart represents but it could be argued that stopping deforestation would not only decrease carbon emissions immediately, but also have the beneficial effect of mitigating other emissions by carbon absorption.

Tackle that problem first. It's a no brainer on how to fix it. When that is done then see what else can be done. If you do that you will not only seem to be reasonable, but practical. The way you guys are going about it is only creating enemies and the fact that data has been manipulated only puts you in a worse situation.

The global order clearly has no interest in solving the problem. If they did we wouldn't be having this conversation. The establishment wants a world government and this ANG BS is just furthering their cause.

I'm all for cutting emissions and eliminating pollution. I don't like being BS'd into it.

[Genava]

And that's just not a good reason. Deforestation could be stopped immediately for far less economic cost. And as I stated earlier, the forests take out more carbon than they release oxygen.

I don't know what numbers the chart represents but it could be argued that stopping deforestation would not only decrease carbon emissions immediately, but also have the beneficial effect of mitigating other emissions by carbon absorption.

Tackle that problem first. It's a no brainer on how to fix it. When that is done then see what else can be done. If you do that you will not only seem to be reasonable, but practical. The way you guys are going about it is only creating enemies and the fact that data has been manipulated only puts you in a worse situation.

The global order clearly has no interest in solving the problem. If they did we wouldn't be having this conversation. The establishment wants a world government and this ANG BS is just furthering their cause.

I'm all for cutting emissions and eliminating pollution. I don't like being BS'd into it.

One question, what are you doing yourself to fight deforestation? Are you supporting legislation to fight against companies promoting deforestation? Are you boycotting products from these companies? I doubt it.

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/ch...tation-report/
https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_re...tion-0400.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...scorecard-2015
http://www.worc.org/were-importing-b...ct-of-the-usa/

You are a citizen as much as I am. I do support strict legislation to protect ecosystems in general. My job is not being a climate scientist, I am an environmental scientist specialized in biogeochemistry and most of my jobs were about protecting wetlands and freshwater ecosystems. They are strong carbon sinks as well.

[B. W.]

One question, what are you doing yourself to fight deforestation? Are you supporting legislation to fight against companies promoting deforestation? Are you boycotting products from these companies? I doubt it.

https://news.mongabay.com/2019/05/ch...tation-report/
https://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_re...tion-0400.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...scorecard-2015
http://www.worc.org/were-importing-b...ct-of-the-usa/

You are a citizen as much as I am. I do support strict legislation to protect ecosystems in general. My job is not being a climate scientist, I am an environmental scientist specialized in biogeochemistry and most of my jobs were about protecting wetlands and freshwater ecosystems. They are strong carbon sinks as well.

I've always supported legislation that prohibits deforestation since I was a boy. My first experience with just how dense a forest could be was in east Texas. Another eye opening experience was in 1960 traveling from Washington State to Alaska going through Canada. It was a rough trip in those days. I remember we came upon a spot in the forest where it had been clear cut several hundred yards wide and as far as the eye could see. My dad told me it was a fire break. The thing that was evident was just how dense the forest was. That was a portion of the Arctic timberline and, like the Amazon rain forest it is a major provider of oxygen as well as removing carbon gases.

I also do all my cooking at home and, yes, I try to be picky about the products I buy. I try to support Texas ranchers and I also eat wild meat as well as fish. Although I don't hunt anymore, I still occasionally participate in the deer head count to determine the number of deer that can be culled in the next years hunt. People that hunt and fish are directly participating in a sustainable environment because the licenses they buy help take care of the game management. ANG people who eat at fast food chains are the first to criticize game hunters. Oddly, it is the ANG folks who are aiding deforestation by eating at establishments who get their beef from those sources.

A quick point of clarification. You stated in an earlier comment that deforestation was declining and I replied that I wasn't sure about the numbers in the charts you provided. You then posted a series of articles in the post linked to above; the first of which states that deforestation is increasing. Here's the thing; they both could be argued to be correct because much of the deforestation, such as that in Indonesia is taking place in mountainous terrain. One could argue that the acreage is decreasing when in fact it could be increasing because of the slope factor in determining acreage. It's important to note how numbers can be deceiving.

When I argue with folks such as yourself, it is from the position that you don't have your priorities straight. If you did you wouldn't have spent 11 pages arguing for stricter controls on energy production in western countries instead of prioritizing stopping deforestation.

For just the equivalent of pocket change, the poor farmers and ranchers in these southern hemisphere countries could be hired to patrol,protect, and rehabilitate areas that have been devastated by slash and burn activities. The people that are driving the ANG theory, that is to say its benefactors, are not interested in this idea at all. They are the ones who are profiting from the deforestation; you can find out who they are by looking at the International Chamber of Commerce and the people behind ANG project. Its the same people. I refer to to it as the Great Deception, but that's just me.

If as much effort was put into informing people of the ill effects of deforestation instead of pushing a theory based on questionable data then the problem would have already gone a long way to being fixed. It's remarkable that everyone has heard of Global Warming but very few people are aware of the massive deforestation that is taking place.

[Genava]

I've always supported legislation that prohibits deforestation since I was a boy. My first experience with just how dense a forest could be was in east Texas. Another eye opening experience was in 1960 traveling from Washington State to Alaska going through Canada. It was a rough trip in those days. I remember we came upon a spot in the forest where it had been clear cut several hundred yards wide and as far as the eye could see. My dad told me it was a fire break. The thing that was evident was just how dense the forest was. That was a portion of the Arctic timberline and, like the Amazon rain forest it is a major provider of oxygen as well as removing carbon gases.

I also do all my cooking at home and, yes, I try to be picky about the products I buy. I try to support Texas ranchers and I also eat wild meat as well as fish. Although I don't hunt anymore, I still occasionally participate in the deer head count to determine the number of deer that can be culled in the next years hunt. People that hunt and fish are directly participating in a sustainable environment because the licenses they buy help take care of the game management.

Then we are both supporting the protection of forests and eating local foods. You see, I am not a monster, neither a globalist

You then posted a series of articles in the post linked to above; the first of which states that deforestation is increasing.

To be more precise, the deforestation was decreasing decade to decade, but in recent years it is slightly increasing. However in the long trend, deforestation has decreased, we are far from the biggest deforestation period we known. For the tropical forest worldwide, the most important decline was between the 1950s and 1980s.

Recently:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global...rs-offset.html

For the Amazonian forest:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When I argue with folks such as yourself, it is from the position that you don't have your priorities straight. If you did you wouldn't have spent 11 pages arguing for stricter controls on energy production in western countries instead of prioritizing stopping deforestation.

Because clearly, this is not the leading cause for climate change. There is far more carbon in the ground that we would never been able to capture through reforestation. Coal, oil and natural gas are the accumulation of millions of years of primary productivity. The emissions from fossil fuel are far higher and are accelerating at a faster pace.

Moreover, it is difficult to even demand the protection of the forests to fight climate change and to reduce our emissions when the recognition of the problem is not accepted by the others. Deniers are refusing the fact that the Earth is warming and/or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

[B. W.]

Then we are both supporting the protection of forests and eating local foods. You see, I am not a monster, neither a globalist



To be more precise, the deforestation was decreasing decade to decade, but in recent years it is slightly increasing. However in the long trend, deforestation has decreased, we are far from the biggest deforestation period we known. For the tropical forest worldwide, the most important decline was between the 1950s and 1980s.

Recently:
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global...rs-offset.html

For the Amazonian forest:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Because clearly, this is not the leading cause for climate change. There is far more carbon in the ground that we would never been able to capture through reforestation. Coal, oil and natural gas are the accumulation of millions of years of primary productivity. The emissions from fossil fuel are far higher and are accelerating at a faster pace.

Moreover, it is difficult to even demand the protection of the forests to fight climate change and to reduce our emissions when the recognition of the problem is not accepted by the others. Deniers are refusing the fact that the Earth is warming and/or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I never called you a monster, so there. Meanwhile the correlation between deforestation and C02 increase doesn't seem to get any attention. Oh well. Let's forget that for a moment and think about what decreased oxygen output means. Oh wait, we don't need oxygen, its the C02 output that the problem. So let's put stricter controls on western countries and let the third world countires produce all the bad C02 they want; ie; Kyoto.

The one thing that really woke up the general public about this ANG BS was the Ethanol legislation. What a disaster that is turning out to be. Of course, a lot of people enriched themselves by investing in Ethanol production facilities before the legislation was passed...even Willie Nelson got in on that. The rest of us had to pay the price.

For me, the Ethanol fiasco cost me over five thousand dollars. The new "fuel" wiped out a lawn mower, a weed eater, an outboard motor on my boat had to be reworked (not to mention replacing the fuel tank and fuel lines) as well as a motor scooter. So yeah, the Ethanol legislation pushed by ANG fanatics and globalists pissed a lot of people off.

Another consequence of the Ethanol fiasco was the increased price of grain exports to third world countries. That is another story in itself.

But now the ANG sponsered Ethanol legislation could have another effect. It seems the folks who were pushing the legislaton were living in a fantasy that corn production would never decrease because global warming would keep the plains fertile. Now a late season cold snap is about to bring that delusion home to roost:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...e_of_corn.html

[Genava]

Meanwhile the correlation between deforestation and C02 increase doesn't seem to get any attention.

Because there is a very weak correlation, statistically the deforestation was decreasing in periods where the atmospheric CO2 was increasing at a faster pace. Moreover plant photosynthesis didn't decrease globally:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-hard-planet.html

Oh well. Let's forget that for a moment and think about what decreased oxygen output means. Oh wait, we don't need oxygen, its the C02 output that the problem.

Oxygen levels are very slightly decreasing because of the burning of fossil fuels:

https://wernerantweiler.ca/blog.php?item=2015-06-01

Moreover, phytoplankton contributes around the half of the world's oxygen:
https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-...-worlds-oxygen

And climate change is causing huge changes on the phytoplanktons (see the two links that discuss this from a critical point of view):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...on/?redirect=1
http://blueplanetsociety.org/2016/02...phytoplankton/

So if you care about oxygen levels, reducing fossil fuels is important.

So let's put stricter controls on western countries and let the third world countires produce all the bad C02 they want; ie; Kyoto.

[B. W.]

Because there is a very weak correlation, statistically the deforestation was decreasing in periods where the atmospheric CO2 was increasing at a faster pace. Moreover plant photosynthesis didn't decrease globally:
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-hard-planet.html



Oxygen levels are very slightly decreasing because of the burning of fossil fuels:

https://wernerantweiler.ca/blog.php?item=2015-06-01

Moreover, phytoplankton contributes around the half of the world's oxygen:
https://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-...-worlds-oxygen

And climate change is causing huge changes on the phytoplanktons (see the two links that discuss this from a critical point of view):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...on/?redirect=1
http://blueplanetsociety.org/2016/02...phytoplankton/

So if you care about oxygen levels, reducing fossil fuels is important.

Ha!HA! I couldn't help but laugh at some of the language used in some of those articles, like this little gem:

The researchers found the most notable phytoplankton declines in waters near the poles and in the tropics, as well as the open ocean.

I guess he means everywhere. The cause as stated is warming of the oceans. But wait...if the ice caps are melting that would chill the waters, so which is it?

Another article confirmed that they expected warmer temperatures to extend the growing season, which ain't happening.

And now they're claiming that decreased oxygen levels aren't that big of a problem because its only a small drop. Hmmm. Really?

There are a lot of contradictions in those articles with one another and I would suggest not posting a wall of articles, just to take up my time. I did read them and I could spend an afternoon nitpicking each on certain points and then the water gets really muddy.

One article claims the Protoplankton contributes 50 to 85% of the worlds oxygen. 85%? These number games are getting crazy. The arctic timberline contributes 30%. The tropical rainforest contributes 20+%, and holds 210 gigatons of carbon (that's just what is left);bear in mind those forest have been accumulating carbon for 100,000 years. What the heck, burn'm up, we'll just blame the C02 increase on fossil fuels.

So we have 85%+30%+20% is...you see where I'm going. Seems like every scientific specialty wants their particular field of study to have preeminence because that's where all the grant money is.

Meanwhile hardworking folks are being hit in the pocketbook. One other thing I didn't mention about that Ethanol bill was that a lot of people had to buy new cars because it would be too expensive to fix their old ones up. So what happened to all those vehicles? Were they taken off the road? Nope. They were shipped to third world countries where they could keep on polluting as long as they can keep them running.

One Plumbing company down here decided it would be cheaper to buy a new fleet of trucks than do the necessary repairs, so they traded their fleet in and got a new fleet. They had a problem. They forgot to take the sticker off one of the trucks and it appeared on film being driven by Al Quada in a terrorist attack in the Middle East. The company almost went out of business because people down here thought they were supporting terrorists...

the long list of unintended consequences just goes on and on.

[Genava]

But wait...if the ice caps are melting that would chill the waters, so which is it?

Pfffffffffffffffffffffff... seriously? This as smart as your previous math understanding. The heat capacity of the ocean is thousands of times enough to melt the ice caps. I did the calculation before but alhoon deleted my message.

Do you have the feeling it is getting colder?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And now they're claiming that decreased oxygen levels aren't that big of a problem because its only a small drop. Hmmm. Really?

I doubt you are able to convert the 20.9% of oxygen in the atmosphere in per meg, to subtract the sum of the decrease and to calculate the rate of change. This is probably why you are not understanding this.

One article claims the Protoplankton contributes 50 to 85% of the worlds oxygen. 85%? These number games are getting crazy. The arctic timberline contributes 30%. The tropical rainforest contributes 20+%, and holds 210 gigatons of carbon (that's just what is left);bear in mind those forest have been accumulating carbon for 100,000 years. What the heck, burn'm up, we'll just blame the C02 increase on fossil fuels.

So we have 85%+30%+20% is...you see where I'm going. Seems like every scientific specialty wants their particular field of study to have preeminence because that's where all the grant money is.

Do you have an idea about how they measure these numbers? No. So please do not write non sense about things you do not understand. Yes there are uncertainties but my point is that phytoplanktons are contributing around the half of the Earth's oxygen and this is true. I took the lower number to not use the uncertainties to make my point.

[B. W.]

Pfffffffffffffffffffffff... seriously? This as smart as your previous math understanding. The heat capacity of the ocean is thousands of times enough to melt the ice caps. I did the calculation before but alhoon deleted my message.

Wow, I wish I could have seen that.

Do you have the feeling it is getting colder?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That image says it is an anomaly.

I doubt you are able to convert the 20.9% of oxygen in the atmosphere in per meg, to subtract the sum of the decrease and to calculate the rate of change. This is probably why you are not understanding this.

I know you're right about that. In fact, no could do it with that little bit of info. In order to calculate rate of change you would have to do it within a set time frame, but with your mathematical abilities you might just be able to pull it off.

Do you have an idea about how they measure these numbers? No. So please do not write non sense about things you do not understand. Yes there are uncertainties but my point is that phytoplanktons are contributing around the half of the Earth's oxygen and this is true. I took the lower number to not use the uncertainties to make my point.

Well, the one article said that the 1890s method of dropping a white plate into the water and measuring the distance at which it is no longer visible is just as accurate as today's methods. I might be able to manage that. When I go fishing I measure the salinity at different levels of depth.

[conon394]

One article claims the Protoplankton contributes 50 to 85% of the worlds oxygen. 85%? These number games are getting crazy. The arctic timberline contributes 30%. The tropical rainforest contributes 20+%, and holds 210 gigatons of carbon (that's just what is left);bear in mind those forest have been accumulating carbon for 100,000 years. What the heck, burn'm up, we'll just blame the C02 increase on fossil fuels.

So we have 85%+30%+20% is...you see where I'm going. Seems like every scientific specialty wants their particular field of study to have preeminence because that's where all the grant money is.

Well without citing the papers your sentence is utter rot. I have no ideal if you are citing long term data or the statistics used or the model not where the papers were published or if they were notes or abstracts. I am surprised to exposed your error by citing a range but than adding only the maximum. Becuse 50+20 +30 is just 100...

[B. W.]

Well without citing the papers your sentence is utter rot. I have no ideal if you are citing long term data or the statistics used or the model not where the papers were published or if they were notes or abstracts. I am surprised to exposed your error by citing a range but than adding only the maximum. Becuse 50+20 +30 is just 100...

Duh...the articles have already been cited. I used the highest estimate that he presented because all the other sources of oxygen generation were not included. In other words, there are more than just the three sources of oxygen we had been discussing. That shouldn't be so hard to figure out.

Going further, there are many more factors to consider about the effects of atmospheric oxygen reduction than he listed in his simple formula. For instance, pilots cannot fly above the average 10,000 feet without oxygen masks unless they are in a pressurized cockpit. A reduction in atmospheric oxygen would most certainly change this guideline and that is only one factor that would be affected.

To consider the effects of reduced atmospheric oxygen content would require the consideration of a host of factors. For instance,nitrogen has a higher weight than oxygen and a higher expansion ratio than oxygen, not to mention all the different weights and expansion ratios of all the other gases present in the atmosphere and how they respond to each other under different pressures. This would require a whole set of laboratory experiments before the parameters of an equation could be formulated.

[Daruwind]

I used the highest estimate that he presented because all the other sources of oxygen generation were not included. In other words, there are more than just the three sources of oxygen we had been discussing.

But that is mistake.

Let´s take example
10-85 %
40-70 %
20-40 %
There are independent studies. Especially if they are not counting other sources...

Reality can be very easily 15+45+25 = 85% + 15% for other sources...

While your combining of maxims is 85+70+40 = 195%

Unless you have complex study with all effects measures to get proper ratios between sources you cannot do such math...mistake is in your theory, approach.

[Muizer]

That image says it is an anomaly.

In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...vs-temperature

[B. W.]

But that is mistake.

Let´s take example
10-85 %
40-70 %
20-40 %
There are independent studies. Especially if they are not counting other sources...

Reality can be very easily 15+45+25 = 85% + 15% for other sources...

While your combining of maxims is 85+70+40 = 195%

Unless you have complex study with all effects measures to get proper ratios between sources you cannot do such math...mistake is in your theory, approach.

The article cited stated that protoplankton contributed 50-85% of oxygen. Even if you take the minimum of 50% that would be 50%+30%+20%=100%. That doesn't include other significant sources such as the Asian rain forests and all the other woods and plants around the globe. Something is way off in the formulation. As I said, everybody wants a bigger share of the grant money.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...vs-temperature

The chart appears to show a downward trend in temperatures.