The Air of Planet Earth
by Larry McCart
|
Based on information from BioTech News, 1997, the percentage of oxygen in the air of Planet Earth in 1950 was 21 percent, and the percentage of oxygen in the air of Planet Earth in 1997 was 19 percent.
The analysis of encapsulated air in fossils found on Planet Earth shows that the percentage of oxygen in the air of Planet Earth has been as high as 38 percent and as low as 10 percent. Birds can thrive with at least a 12 percent oxygen level; humans can thrive with at least a 20 percent oxygen level, and humans probably would function better if the oxygen level were between 24 percent and 34 percent. If the oxygen level were over 34 percent, humans probably would not function as well, and 100 percent oxygen would be harmful. Based on information from BioTech News, 1997, the air of Planet Earth is 80 percent nitrogen, 19 percent oxygen, and 1 percent other gases such as carbon dioxide. When a human breathes, about 40 percent of the oxygen is converted to carbon dioxide. This small amount of carbon dioxide is converted to oxygen by forests and ocean plankton. When people talk about excessive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air causing global warming, they are talking about carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels such as gasoline and natural gas. Kern County, California, probably is the richest county in the world, and is one of the most industrialized locations in the world. Huge amounts of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are burned in this area to provide electricity for the oil fields in Kern County and to provide electricity for the Los Angeles area of California. Kern County is among the worst areas of the world regarding high ozone content, and Kern County is among the worst areas of the world regarding low oxygen content. Measurements of oxygen as low as 12 percent have been made in heavily industrialized areas. It is common for persons in some areas of Kern County to experience a generalized lack of well-being because of low oxygen content in the air, and to have to take three deep breaths in order to get the same effect that one deep breath used to provide. "As fossil fuels burn, they generate carbon dioxide, using up oxygen in the process," explains Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research (Science Daily, July 19, 1999). "About half of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels remains in the atmosphere". "The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air (20.95 per cent by volume)". "The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 per cent in the past 20 years, and does not have an impact on our breathing". "Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this". According to other researchers (BioTech News, 1997), the oxygen content of the air of Planet Earth is about 19 percent. In 1960 an airline pilot was required by law to use a breathing apparatus if the oxygen content of the air in the airplane were below 19.5 percent; federal authorities believed a 19.5 percent oxygen level was the minimum necessary for the pilot to be fully alert and fully functional while piloting the airplane. In 1970 occupational safety health rules required a breathing apparatus when oxygen was 19.5 percent or less. Due to internal combustion engines that use fossil fuels such as gasoline, kerosene, and diesel fuel, and because of factories for electricity generation that burn fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas, and because more and more forest area and ocean plankton are lost each year, the oxygen content of the air of Planet Earth goes down each year. The resulting oxygen-depleted condition is a contributing cause of the generalized lack of well-being that many are experiencing. And it does not look good for the future. Trees and green plants provide about half of our oxygen, and plankton provide most of the rest of our oxygen. Phytoplankton (the base of the marine food chain) are declining. Various studies confirm this: Plankton in parts of the Antarctic Ocean have declined about 12 percent. (S. Weiler. Testimony to Senate Commerce Committee, November 15, 1991) Walter Russell, a visionary artist and scientist, predicted in his book Atomic Suicide published in 1957 that due to man-made radioactivity we would experience a loss of oxygen in the air that we breathe. In a similar way to the predictions of Andrei Sakharov in the 1950's, Walter Russell's foresight is now coming true. Trees absorb radioactive carbon-14 in place of stable forms of carbon, and in this way they are gradually killed. The book, The Petkau Effect, by Ralph Graeub tells how radioactivity has harmed trees and forests: "It is assumed that the decisive physiological damage resulting in current forest death must have begun during the 1950's. This is depicted in a reduction in density and width of tree rings, and in reduced growth, which is true in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Himalayas.... Neither aging, location, nor climate can be considered as the possible sole cause of damage.... The growth ring of a tree shows exactly what effects the tree has experienced, both in terms of time and seriousness.... During the 1950's and 1960's, there must have been a global wave of air pollution that caused the initial damage". The author, Ralph Graeub, speculates that it could not be just the usual chemicals that are damaging the trees. And he explains that these trees are mainly within the 30th to 60th parallels of northern latitude. "This zone contains the most nuclear power plants –– over 300 –– and almost all nuclear reprocessing centers. Also, the vast majority of nuclear weapons tests occurred in this area".Hydrogen use in vehicles involves the permanent removal of oxygen from the air of Planet Earth, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the use of hydrogen in a vehicle (whether in an engine or in a fuel cell) results in oxygen from the air being turned into water. It has been estimated that the global use of hydrogen for complete replacement of fossil fuels would result in the permanent removal from our air of about 28,875,000 metric tons of oxygen per day. Because of pollution resulting from the production of hydrogen and because of oxygen depletion when hydrogen is used for powering vehicles, the alternative of using hydrogen-powered vehicles should be rejected.
Solutions Scientific and financial support is needed for the non-destructive types of energy waiting in the wings to end our reliance on oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Solar energy, wind energy, and other non-destructive types of energy are competing against nuclear power that receives enormous support in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and insurance coverage provided by the US federal government. We should use non-destructive sources of electricity such as solar panels, and we should use non-destructive forms of transportation such as electric vehicles. Solar, thermal, photovoltaic, wind, hydro-electric, geo-thermal, and other non-destructive types of energy are ready and waiting. Working prototypes exist that could be improved and rapidly copied around the world at affordable cost. The citizens of Iceland enjoy the benefits of a technologically advanced civilization without oxygen depletion and without dangerous CO2 emissions. Iceland's electricity and heating come from hydro-electric power and geo-thermal power. About 17% of Iceland's electricity comes from geothermal sources. Iceland uses its pollution-free and low-cost electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen through the process of electrolysis at a factory producing ammonia for low-cost fertilizers for maximizing farm production. The Christian Science Monitor reports that
geothermal plants could supply about 100,000 megawatts (the equivalent of 200 big coal-burning power plants) by
2050. That power could help replace the 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired power and 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power that the
US is expected to lose over the next 25 years as it closes old power plants. Troy Reed of Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, seems to have developed a system for an electric car that works without causing oxygen depletion and without dangerous CO2 emissions. He kept the details of his system secret hoping that he could make money, and it was reported that he was found dead in 2006; some people believe Troy Reed did not die, and may resume public appearances when it is safe for him to do this. A big drop in crude oil prices would be a threat to national security from the point of view of the leadership in some nations, and a highly successful "free energy" inventor could cause a big drop in crude oil prices. If an inventor has a "free energy" invention that would be viewed by some political leaders as a threat to national security, complete and accurate information about the "free energy" invention should be put in the public domain in order to remove the incentive for assassinating the inventor. If you as an individual are doing useful research work regarding alternative energy, you probably would be better off if you do not apply for a US patent. When you apply for a US patent, you are notifying the cabal that controls the US federal government that you have something that might make life easier for US citizen-masters. If US citizen-masters achieve an easier life because of new technology and do not have to work as much to maintain an acceptable standard of living, US citizen-masters would have more time to develop defenses against enemies of Freedom (ignorant and insane goofballs who believe they should be masters over US citizen-masters). If you as an individual are doing useful research work regarding alternative energy, you probably would be better off if you refuse any offer by the US federal government to give you a money grant. It seems the main reason the US federal government gives away "free money" to research companies is to gain control over research projects, and US federal government control over a research project seems to generally mean the end of useful research. "...we have a member of our team who had worked at the US Patent Office and had personally seen that there were several thousand patents that had been sequestered away, and illegally classified as secret (making it against US federal law to release to the public) that dealt with clean energy technologies...." (According to Dr. Steven Greer) Why would the cabal in control of the US federal government want to suppress technology that would allow US citizen-masters to avoid mass starvation between 2010 and 2020 as predicted by Dr. Joseph DiRuzzo? Are the rumors true about the US federal government having thousands of railway cars with shackles? Are the rumors true about the US federal government having hundreds of concentration camps ready for use? James Bacque wrote two books: Other Losses and Crimes & Mercies. The first book details how the US federal government exterminated one million German prisoners of war during and after World War Two. The other book reveals how the US federal government exterminated five million innocent German civilians (Jews and Gentiles) in the first few years after World War Two. The victims were forced to be out in the open without shelter in concentration camps surrounded by prison-style fences. The primary extermination method was starvation. The cabal in control of the US federal government seems to want to suspend the US Constitution and declare marshal law, so that US citizens will be US citizen-slaves rather than US citizen-masters. The Muslim World failed to cooperate in the cabal's efforts to start World War Three that would have been an excuse for suspending the US Constitution and imposing marshal law. Now it seems the cabal is trying to get the energy and food production systems so messed up that there will be mass starvation in the US and an excuse for suspending the US Constitution and declaring marshal law. The ultimate objective of the cabal in control of the US federal government (along with foreign associates) seems to be a one-world government (communist dictatorship) in control of the nations of Planet Earth. It seems the mass propaganda systems controlled by the one-worlders would try to convince starving citizens of the world's nations that if they would give up their national sovereignty and accept a one-world dictatorship, the starvation crisis could be quickly ended. If starving citizens of the world's nations refuse to accept a one-world dictatorship, then the cabal could try to make the starvation crisis even worse in order to achieve another of their objectives — reduction of world population to a much lower level. In May 2001 Dr. Steven Greer said that the ultimate US national security issue is intimately linked to the pressing environmental crisis facing the world today: This issue is the question of whether humanity can continue as a technologically advanced civilization. Dr. Greer said that fossil fuels and internal combustion engines are non-sustainable both environmentally and economically — and a replacement for both already exists. If such technologies were announced today (May 2001), it would take at least 10 to 20 years for their widespread application to be effected, according to Dr. Greer. This is approximately how much time we have before global economic chaos begins (due to demand far exceeding the supply of oil) and before environmental decay becomes exponential and catastrophic, according to Dr. Greer in May 2001. Re-mineralize the soil, and quadruple plant life for absorbing CO2 and making oxygen. Stop using meat and cow milk as food because of the resulting abuse of land and water, because of the resulting particle air pollution, and because eating meat and drinking cow milk cause health problems. All nuclear power production should be stopped except for military nuclear power production. Non-destructive sources of power should be used as much as possible in the place of destructive sources of power.Because the US federal government is responsible for the creation of the US nuclear industry, and because the US federal government helped some foreign nations (including Russia) to create nuclear industries, the US federal government is the primary cause of the ozone hole. An article in the German publication Strahlentelex (March 3, 1994) explains that the nuclear industry is responsible for the ozone hole. The authors, Giebel and Sternglass explain that radioactive gases like krypton-85 from nuclear plants and from the nuclear fuel recycling plants go up to the stratosphere where they create water droplets from the moisture that in turn form ice crystals that accelerate the destruction of ozone by fluorohydrocarbons. Because the US federal government is responsible for the creation of the US nuclear industry, and because the US federal government helped some foreign nations (including Russia) to create nuclear industries, the US federal government is the primary cause of most of the nuclear pollution of Planet Earth. Nuclear pollution causes a drop each year in the percentage of oxygen in the air of Planet Earth. A book written in 1957 by Walter Russell (Atomic Suicide) presents evidence that nuclear pollution will cause the percentage of oxygen in the air of Planet Earth to fall below the level needed by humans to survive on Planet Earth without special breathing equipment. There is a realistic probability that human life on Planet Earth as we now know it will cease to exist by 2200 because of insane and irresponsible actions of the US federal government. History has made it clear that the US federal government is a problem in our way, and that we must earn the money ourselves to pay for a better future, and that we must do the work ourselves to achieve a better future. If US citizens can get a Constitutional amendment passed that abolishes the US federal government, so that US citizens can have 50 sovereign states, then achieving a better future will be easier. |
From the Series: 100 months to save the worldTime is fast running out to stop irreversible climate change, according to a group of global warming experts. According to Andrew Simms, we have only 100 months (until December 2016) to avoid disaster.
The Final Countdown by Andrew Simms from The Guardian August 1, 2008 edited by Larry McCart
In 100
months (December 2016), if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative
estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginning of runaway
climate change. That said, among people working on global warming, there
are many models, scenarios, and different iterations of those
models and scenarios. So, let us be clear from the outset about exactly
what we mean.
The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today,
the most prevalent greenhouse gas, is the highest it has been for the
past 650,000 years. In the space of just 250 years, as a result of the
coal-fired Industrial Revolution, and changes to land use such as the
growth of cities and the felling of forests, we have released,
cumulatively, more than 1,800 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Currently, approximately 1,000 tons of CO2 are released into the
Earth's atmosphere every second, due to human activity. Greenhouse gases
trap incoming solar radiation, warming the atmosphere. When these gases
accumulate beyond a certain level ( often termed a "tipping
point") global warming will accelerate, potentially beyond
control. In climate change, a number of feedback loops amplify warming through
physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming
itself, or the increase in greenhouse gases. One example is the melting
of ice sheets. The loss of ice cover reduces the ability of the Earth's
surface to reflect heat and, by revealing darker surfaces, increases the
amount of heat absorbed. Other dynamics include the decreasing ability
of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind strengths linked to climate
change. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North
Atlantic, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and adding to
climate change. Once a critical greenhouse concentration threshold is
passed, global warming will continue even if we stop releasing
additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If that happens, the
Earth's climate will shift into another, more volatile state, with
different ocean circulation, wind and rainfall patterns. The
implications are
potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. Such a change in the state
of the climate system is often referred to as irreversible climate
change. It is
possible to estimate the length of time it will take to reach a tipping
point. To do so you combine current greenhouse gas concentrations with
the best estimates for emissions growth, the
maximum concentration of greenhouse gases allowable to forestall
potentially irreversible changes to the climate system, and the effect
of those environmental feedbacks. We followed the latest data and trends
for carbon dioxide, and made allowances for all human interferences
that influence temperatures, both those with warming and cooling
effects. We followed the judgments of the mainstream climate science
community, represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), on what it will take to retain a good chance of not crossing the
critical threshold of the Earth's average surface temperature rising by
2C above pre-industrial levels. We were cautious in several ways,
optimistic even, and perhaps too much so. A rise of 2C may mask big
problems that begin at a lower level of warming. For example, collapse
of the Greenland ice sheet is more than likely to be triggered by a
local warming of 2.7C, that could correspond to a global mean
temperature increase of 2C or less. The disintegration of the Greenland
ice sheet could correspond to a sea-level rise of up to 7 meters. In arriving at our timescale, we also used the lower end of threats
in assessing the impact of vanishing ice cover and other carbon-cycle
feedbacks (those wanting more can download a note on method from onehundredmonths.org). We found that, given all of the above, 100 months from today we will
reach a concentration of greenhouse gases "likely" to cause a
move above the 2C temperature rise
threshold. "Likely" in this context refers to the definition
of risk used by the IPCC. Just before reaching a 2C temperature
rise, there is a one third chance of reaching the point of irreversible
climate change. Must we allow our cynicism about politicians to give them an easy ride as
they fail to act in our, the national, and the planet's best interest?
There is now a different clock to watch than the one on the office wall.
Contrary to being a counsel of despair, it tells us that everything we
do from now matters. This different clock tells us that it is
irresponsible for a government to build a third runway at Heathrow, or
to allow a new generation of coal-fired power
stations. Infrastructure that is fossil-fuel-dependent radically reduces our ability to make
cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions. Deflecting blame and responsibility is a great skill of
politicians. The most common strategies used by politicians recently have been
wringing their hands and blaming China's rising emissions, and telling
individuals to, well, be a bit more careful. It is stupid to think that countries such as China, India, and Brazil will
fundamentally change until wealthy countries such as Britain take a
lead. [(added by editor) It is difficult for individuals alone to effect a comprehensive re-engineering of the nation's
fossil-fuel-dependent energy, food, and transport systems. The government
should help, or at least not stand in the way because of the
government's desire to protect
selfish special interest groups]. The challenge is rapid transition of the economy in order to live
within our environmental means, while preserving and enhancing our
general well-being. To lead by example, very public energy restrictions
should be introduced in government and local authority buildings, shops, and
railway stations. [(added by editor) Governmental leaders should travel in safe and
relatively low-cost aircraft, and should not allow the press corps to
have a free ride]. We face the fallout from the credit crisis, high oil
prices, and
rising food prices, and the massive added challenge of having to avert
climate change. In terms of what is possible in times of economic stress and
isolation, Cuba provides a good example to follow. In a single year
(2006) Cuba rolled-out a
nationwide program for replacing inefficient incandescent light bulbs with
low-energy alternatives. Prior to that, at the end of the cold war,
after losing access to cheap Soviet oil, it switched over to growing
most of its food for domestic consumption on small scale, often urban
plots, using mostly low-fossil-fuel organic techniques. Half the food
consumed in the capital, Havana, was grown in the city's own gardens.
Cuba echoed and surpassed what America achieved in its push for
"Victory Gardening" during World War Two, when between 30-40% of vegetables for domestic
consumption were produced by the Victory Gardening movement. Oil and coal producing nations receive more and more
money as the prices of crude oil and coal go up; receiving more and more
money is an incentive to produce even larger amounts of crude oil and
coal -- resulting in less time before climate disaster. These
nations list their fossil-fuel reserves as
"proven" or "probable"; a new category of
"unburnable" should be introduced; [(added by editor) and United Nations law
enforcement officers should strictly enforce laws regulating the use of
what is classified as "unburnable"]. There should be a program to overhaul the nation's heat-leaking
building stock. This will have the benefit of massively cutting
emissions and reducing fuel expenditures. A transition from
"one person, one car" on the roads, to a variety of clean
reliable forms of public transport should be visible by the middle of
our 100 months. Similarly, weaning agriculture off fossil-fuel
dependency will be a phased process. The end result will be the people
of Britain being more secure in terms of the food and energy supplies, and
with a more resilient economy capable of weathering whatever economic
and environmental shocks the world has to throw at us. Each of these
challenges will draw on things that we already know how to do. Andrew Simms is policy director and head of the
climate change program at NEF (New Economics Foundation). The
material on climate models for this article was prepared by Dr. Victoria
Johnson, researcher at NEF on climate change. For regular suggestions
for what individuals and groups can do to take action, and links to a
wide range of organizations supporting the focus on the 100 months
countdown, go to: onehundredmonths.org.
The Green New Deal can be downloaded at neweconomics.org.
______________________________
China Leads In Carbon Pollution Pollution typically declines during a recession. Not this time. Despite a global economic slump, worldwide carbon dioxide pollution jumped 2 percent last year, most of the increase coming from China, according to a study published online Tuesday.
"The growth in emissions since 2000 is almost entirely driven by the growth in China," said study lead author Corinne Le Quere of the University of East Anglia. "It's China and India and all the developing countries together."
Carbon dioxide emissions, the chief man-made greenhouse gas, come from the burning of coal, oil, natural gas, and also from the production of cement, which is a significant pollution factor in China. Worldwide emissions rose 671 million more tons from 2007 to 2008. Nearly three-quarters of that increase came from China.
The numbers are from the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory and published in the journal Nature
Geo-Science.
According to the study, the 2008 emissions increase was smaller than normal for this decade. Annual global pollution growth has averaged 3.6 percent. This year, scientists are forecasting a nearly 3 percent reduction, despite China because of the massive economic slowdown in most of the world and in the United States.
The U.S. is still the biggest per capita major producer of man-made greenhouse gases, spewing about 20 tons of carbon dioxide per person per year. The world average is 5.3 tons and China is at 5.8 tons.
Last year, the U.S. emissions fell by 3 percent, a reduction of nearly 192 million tons of carbon dioxide. Overall European Union emissions dropped by 1 percent. The U.S. is still the No. 2 biggest carbon polluter overall, emitting more than the next four largest polluting countries combined: India, Russia, Japan and Germany. China has been No. 1, since pushing past the United States in 2006.
The world remains on a dangerous path, despite the recession, scientists said.
"There's a very clear gap between the path we are on and the path we should be on if the goal is to limit global warming to 2 degrees (1.3 degrees Celsius)," said Le
Quere, who also works for the British Antarctic Survey.
The world has spewed 715.3 trillion tons of industrial carbon dioxide since 1982, which is the same amount civilization produced in all the previous years, said study co-author Gregg Marland of the Oak Ridge National Lab.
Outside scientists said the study was thorough and the results sobering.
"Basically these numbers are screaming out at decision makers that whatever they are doing now is not working," said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who wasn't involved in the study.
The report comes as countries from around the world prepare for a December U.N. conference on reducing carbon emissions. Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen of Denmark, who will host the conference in Copenhagen, said Tuesday that President Barack Obama supported his proposal for a sweeping political deal that would include commitments by industrial countries to reduce carbon emissions and to provide funds for less developed countries to fight the effects of global warming.
Obama, who was in China, said after a meeting with President Hu Jintao Tuesday that he wanted an all-encompassing agreement in Copenhagen, even if it falls short of a legal treaty. And he said he wants something "that has immediate operational effect."
Le Quere said the numbers point specifically to developing world as the cause for the most recent growth.
China is opening up new coal-fired power plants at a breakneck pace and carbon dioxide emissions in that country have doubled since 2001.
Not all the emission increases in China and other developing countries come from new power plants. About one-quarter of the emissions growth is because western countries, like the United States, buy more manufactured products from those countries, Le Quere and Marland said.
"We're shipping our emissions offshore," Marland said.
Other countries beside China to increase their carbon dioxide emissions by more than 5 million tons in 2008 were India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Indonesia, Iran, Poland, Mexico, Canada and the Netherlands.
The paper also raised concerns because it shows that the percentage of carbon dioxide emissions that hang in the air -- compared to those sucked into the oceans and forests -- is growing.
Fifty years ago, only 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions stayed in the air. Now in this decade it's up to 45 percent, Le Quere said.
That steady rise is alarming because the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer it gets, and the warmer it gets, the higher percentage of carbon dioxide stays in the air, Le Quere said.
It's a feedback loop that is not good news for global warming, she said. |
Is the Earth Getting Warmer, or Cooler?