Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by StuM

Going back to the original plastic bag experiment.

The minimum safe lower limit for O2 is .16 bar at normal atmospheric pressure. " Hypoxia and sudden unconsciousness becomes a problem with an oxygen partial pressure of less than 0.16 bar absolute."

So breathing inside that bag, once we have converted 5% of the oxygen to CO2, we hit the critical low concentration of O2 at 16%.

At that stage, CO2 is 50,400 ppm - well below that 60,000 ppm that we have to watch out for.

IOW, it is the lack of oxygen that will kill you in this experiment.

I agree with you. My method is useless tho prove the thesis "CO2 is non toxic", but the thesis was "CO2 is non-lethal" Your suggested set-up to replace Nitrogen with CO2 would be the better method to prove the toxicity of CO2 As I said before:

Originally Posted by adoxograph

...I would not follow StuM's recommendation replacing Nitrogen with CO2 because you will not be able to write a log even this experiment would prove the toxicity of CO2 as there is still oxygen in the air mixture.

CO2 is a toxic gas at high concentration, as well as an asphyxiant gas (due to reduction in oxygen).

StuM's Experiment setup will prove the former, my set-up the latter...

I think there are enough studies out there to figure out what levels of gases will have what impact on humans. We don't have to risk Udacha's well-being to figure that out. (Udacha no offence intended in this exchange, just having some fun here)

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

... The original graph is also shown below.

What I am looking at? I don't understand the Y-axis in this graph. It shows a temperature of about -31.6 degrees right now.

Is it just the local temperature of wherever the ice-core was taken? What was the method to determine the temperature? Isotopes of 18O and D, as fractionation is temperature dependent?

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

I agree with you. My method is useless tho prove the thesis "CO2 is non toxic", but the thesis was "CO2 is non-lethal" Your suggested set-up to replace Nitrogen with CO2 would be the better method to prove the toxicity of CO2

Yep, and it would work a lot quicker if you just supplied breathing air initially at:
71% Nitrogen
21% Oxygen
7% CO2
...

[StuM]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

What I am looking at? I don't understand the Y-axis in this graph. It shows a temperature of about -31.6 degrees right now.

Is it just the local temperature of wherever the ice-core was taken? What was the method to determine the temperature? Isotopes of 18O and D, as fractionation is temperature dependent?

Yep, local temperature at the time the ice crystals were formed.

Primarily derived from the 18O/16O ratio - but similar work has also been done using Argon and Nitrogen isotopes.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

What I am looking at? I don't understand the Y-axis in this graph. It shows a temperature of about -31.6 degrees right now.

Is it just the local temperature of wherever the ice-core was taken? What was the method to determine the temperature? Isotopes of 18O and D, as fractionation is temperature dependent?

More importantly, how does a 1, 2, 4 or even 8 degree rise in temperature melt that particular slab of ice

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Interesting graph, not because of the information it provides, but because of what it says about people who rely on such tricks to try and make their point.

If the point is that this graph somehow refutes the 'hockey stick' measurements...

For starters, why does a '10,000 year graph' only show 9780 years?

Why is the interval between the years on the left side 436 years, but on the right side 113? What effect does the gradually shortening scale have on the accuracy of the curve, or what it is purportedly illustrating?

If the time period ends at 1950 on the right, we must assume that the last year shown on the graph is 1855. If that assumption is correct, then the graph leaves out the 'blade' (the very rapid warming period) of the original hockey stick graph completely. The original graph is also shown below.






The original hockey stick graph.




Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).



Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found...

Mr Muller made some interesting admissions. First let's look at his wonderful assisting scientist, Art Rosenthal who worked with Muller on creating his analytical graphs.

Art Rosenthal is indeed a scholar. A world renowned scientist of great intellect. A Scientist who also strove to use his intelligence for the betterment of mankind. Social aspirations one would expect from a Berkley alumni and I say that without criticism.

"In 2010 he was voted into the National Academy of Engineering. That year he was also appointed Distinguished Scientist Emeritus at LBNL, where he devotes much of his attention to an international campaign for the adoption of white roofs and "cool colored" surfaces to reduce heat islands and mitigate global warming."

He used his theories, research and wonderful intelligence to find ways to conserve energy. He indeed has had a positive impact on society in this endeavor. But as the above quote shows, the Global Warmers were not content with this scientist creating applied solutions towards energy conservation, they had to add that he worked to mitigate global warming.

He may well have become a global warming adherent given his links with Berkley University. Which calls into question his dispassionate thinking in working with Muller.

Of the many other things that struck me when listening to Muller was his statement about those who collected tests results around the world were they drew their figures from. I paraphrase. "some only submitted 20% of their tests while others only 7% ".

No explanation was given as to why this serious fault in test samoling? Why did the measure takers discard 80% to 93% of the data collected? What biases came into play in their decision making into which data sets to keep and which to not use? If course no answer was even touched upon.

These now unscientific figures were used to create his wonderful model. I am sure he secured his place at Berkley once again following his retirement. To heck with rigorous scientific enquiry. Muller and Rosenthal now enjoy support from Berkley in their twilight years.

[adoxograph]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

More importantly, how does a 1, 2, 4 or even 8 degree rise in temperature melt that particular slab of ice

It doesn't. You rather look at the isotope ratio (18O/16O or 18O/D, etc.) which has a nearly linear relationship to temperature.

I think those guys drilling the icecores pray to their icy gods that they will not find any melting period. That would complicate the measurements dramatically

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Interesting graph, not because of the information it provides, but because of what it says about people who rely on such tricks to try and make their point.

Umm, check the 1000 year mark on Richard Alley's graph and compare it to Michael "90% of the GBR is dead" Mann's data. Who exactly is tricking who, here?

For starters, why does a '10,000 year graph' only show 9780 years?

Yo serious, bro? This isn't a car ticket price.

Why is the interval between the years on the left side 436 years, but on the right side 113? What effect does the gradually shortening scale have on the accuracy of the curve, or what it is purportedly illustrating?

That the current rate of climate change bandied as extraordinary with everything unable to adapt is actually mediocre? That resolution improves with fresher samples?

If the time period ends at 1950 on the right, we must assume that the last year shown on the graph is 1855. If that assumption is correct, then the graph leaves out the 'blade' (the very rapid warming period) of the original hockey stick graph completely. The original graph is also shown below.

Better go read up on how ice core samples work with temperature determination.

The original hockey stick graph.




Green dots show the 30-year average of the new PAGES 2k reconstruction. The red curve shows the global mean temperature, according HadCRUT4 data from 1850 onwards. In blue is the original hockey stick of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1999 ) with its uncertainty range (light blue).



Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found...

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

It doesn't. You rather look at the isotope ratio (18O/16O or 18O/D, etc.) which has a nearly linear relationship to temperature.

I think those guys drilling the icecores pray to their icy gods that they will not find any melting period. That would complicate the measurements dramatically

i'm suggesting if the ice is -30 (or 243 K) then a few degrees of warming aint gunna melt it.

[GoingWalkabout]

" Here's a role model for you 'skeptics'. This guy didn't believe the 'hype', so he went out and organized his own study. Guess what he found..."

Miller's study doesn't amount to a pile of beans when one considers his flawed data sources.

[Celestialsailor]

To drive a point home...I liked what Muller (not Miller) stated that the only people he could convince were those that are open=minded. That theory sure has been proven here.

[adoxograph]

As some of you think it is time to attack scientists here a friendly reminder of the scientific method.

One important aspect of the scientific method is that any theory must be possible to be disproven. Only religion works with dogma.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by adoxograph

...Replacing Nitrogen with CO2 would render him immediately unconscious...

Negatory

...No danger there that we kill ourself with CO2. However replacing Nitrogen (78%) with CO2 and leaving O2 untouched will kill him instantly...

Again, negatory.

When a person holds their breath, voluntarily or otherwise, the uncomfortable feeling that starts almost immediately IS NOT caused by a lack of oxygen, but rather by a build-up of CO2 in the body's cells and in the lungs. The body has a very slow response to hypoxia, or a lack of oxygen.

If you put your "experimental" plastic bag over your head and continuously flood it with nitrogen, or argon, or helium (or any non-toxic, non-reactive gas) you will breath "normally", without discomfort, until you black out -- say, in 2 to 5 minutes. Some time after you become unconscious your body will start reacting to becoming hypoxic and may twitch a little. But you will not be conscious, so you won't "feel" it. For most people, permanent brain damage will occur by 5 minutes into your "experiment", and death certainly by 10 minutes.

The reason you won't "feel" uncomfortable during this "experiment" is because you are purging the plastic bag of CO2 with the non-toxic gas. It is the buildup of CO2 that makes you feel like gasping for breath, not the lack of oxygen.

This is why it can be dangerous playing around with breathing the helium from balloons to make your voice sound funny. The helium itself is inert and won't hurt you. But it can displace the oxygen in your lungs while also purging the signalling CO2 from your lungs. So you don't realize anything is amiss until you black out. Of course, you will then probably start breathing a normal air mixture and regain consciousness with no ill effect, but you are dancing near the edge of a cliff, so to speak.

Anyway, as others have said, don't try the plastic bag "experiment" unless you are fully prepared for St. Peter's entrance interview.

[SailOar]

Dazzling blue lakes are forming in Antarctica — and they’ve got scientists worried | Washington Post

In a new study, scientists who study the largest ice mass on Earth — East Antarctica — have found that it is showing a surprising feature reminiscent of the fastest melting one: Greenland.

More specifically, the satellite-based study found that atop the coastal Langhovde Glacier in East Antarctica’s Dronning Maud Land, large numbers of “supraglacial” or meltwater lakes have been forming — nearly 8,000 of them in summer between the year 2000 and 2013. Moreover, in some cases, just as in Greenland, these lakes appear to have then been draining down into the floating parts of the glacier, potentially weakening it and making it more likely to fracture and break apart.[...]

[SailOar]

As Earth warms, Americans more polarized than ever on climate | Christian Science Monitor

Just as scientists are warning that our planet's climate is set to overshoot critical thresholds, Americans have become more divided than ever along partisan lines over global warming.[...]

"It's more politically polarizing than abortion," said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, to the Associated Press. "It's more politically polarizing than gay marriage."[...]