Thursday, April 19, 2012
The oxygen crisis
Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?
Written by Peter Thatchell and appearing in the Guardian it hits all the buttons of lunacy
Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.
I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern."Prehistoric" literally about 4,000 BC when writing began and therefore before which there can be no written history.
What these buffoons have stumbled on is some actually very interesting real science done by analysing air trapped in amber back in the time of the dinosaurs.
Analyses of the gases in these bubbles show that the Earth's atmosphere, 67 million years ago, contained nearly 35 percent oxygen compared to present levels of 21 percent. Results are based upon more than 300 analyses by USGS scientists of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and recent-age amber from 16 world sites.* The oldest amber in this study is about 130 million years old.That explains the heretofore inexplicable ability of pterosaurs to fly when their apparent power to weight ratio was wrong - more oxygen means faster burning of food, means more power.
But 67 million years is quite a lot of time for this to have happened over. You don't have to be a "scientist" but merely capable of some primary school arithmetic to realise that if oxygen has dropped 14% over 67 million years the drop since "prehistory" ended will be about 0.0012% which is riot going to undermine even Thatchells' health.
Of course Thatchell is a gay/;environmental/anti-racist/socialist/anti-capitalist/Labour/Green/anti-smoking/authoritarian activist who couldn't get elected for Labour in a safe seat. As such he is an official part of Britian's PC nomenklatura regularly invited to pontificate on what is and is not allowed by the "balanced" BBC Fascists and Guardianistas.
BBC radio (Scotland) invited (Thatchell, who has no Scots connection) on as a guest to discuss some Catholic prelate who had referred to homosexuals as "perverts". Now quite obviously, in biblical terms for those interested in such things, this is nothing but the truth. Nonetheless despite this & despite the fact that a poll had shown that a very large number of people agreed Tatchell's argument was entirely the assertion that such a word was "unacceptable". The arrogance of this dismissal of the right of even a majority of people to hold contrary opinions was breathtaking.
With all that support from Beeboid/Guardian totalitarians who censor anybody with something reasonable and fact based to say what need does he, or anybody in the nomenklatura who read the Guardian without laughing, have for the ability to do primary school arithmetic.
A fitting display of the ignorance, dishonesty and stupidity of our ruling nomenklatura, but also of their desperate attempts to produce some new scare story "to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
Dear Guardian Editor,I will, of course, publish any reply they make.
I would like to know if the Guardian wishes to claim that any single article or even statement published by you is at least 11,000 times closer to honesty than the very highest standard of honesty to which you aspire ,demonstrated in Peter Thatchell's "stealing our oxygen" scare story - or should every single word be treated as the sort of lie to be expected from the corrupt, lying, child raping, organlegging totalitarian fascist parasites who work for your propaganda rag?
On very much the same lines Bishop Hill has a reply from C4 news acknowledging that, when they did a piece on shale gas, including the pictures of allegedly fracked gas getting through water pipes they knew at the time that this was a fraud. The have, nonetheless not retracted it
Having broadcast what you have admitted you knew at the time to be a wholly fraudulent film making a false scare claim about shale gas I would be interested to know if there is any intent to retract it. If not you are obviously claiming this lie as being in accord with the very highest standard of honesty to which C4 news ever aspires.
Do you claim that the claims made about atrocities in Sri Lanka, or your acknowledged faking of film about Yugoslavia or a single word you have said about Syria etc are at least thousands of times closer to honest that the very highest standard of honesty you corrupt, lying, child raping, organlegging totalitarian fascist parasites ever aspire to
UPDATE - I have had a reply from ITN (ie C4 News) "I will be blocking emails from you from now on, because I don’t appreciate being called a liar, a fascist parasite or indeed a child rapist.". How different from the BBC who, when I said the same to them, in 2006, asked for details so that they would "address" the points. In fact, of course, the BBC, like ITN were ultimately unable to dispute any of the facts and while they may not "appreciate" the truth neither has been able to deny that every employee of both organisations are indeed "corrupt, lying, child raping, organlegging totalitarian fascist parasites ."
I examined the sheer level of oxygen consumption to deplete the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere.
The Earth's atmosphere is 5 million gigatons
so 1 million gigatons of oxygen
so 10000 gigatons of lunar silicon burned up uses up as much oxygen, an arbitrary limit to this would be say the equivalent of 1% of the atmospheric oxygen (.21% of the whole atmosphere, 1/500 of the atmospheric pressure.
This would take 333 years at 30 gigatons a year.
The current realistic limit--if this happened today--would be 10 gigatons a year because you couldn't sell much more scrap iron than that (assuming 10-20% weight of payload as barge mass. That would be good for 1000 years.
See the article for all the disclaimers. Don't advocate doing this as a coal substitute just exploring the economics of an idea--
But the point is-- it's not a problem.
And if we lived in a world rich as oxygen as the dinosaurs you wouldn't believe the fires. I am not sure I am joking that the choice is between steaming jungle and swamp and ash-strewn desert. We are optimized for the current oxygen level.
Not that our political nomenklatura even understand why such things are worth knowing.