Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
Published December 14, 2007
According to a study conducted by scientists from the Scripps Institute there is less oxygen in the atmosphere today than there used to be. The ongoing study, which accumulated and interpreted data from NOAA monitoring stations all over the world, has been running from 1989 to the present. It monitored both the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the decline in oxygen. The conclusion of that 20 year study is that, as carbon dioxide (produced primarily by burning fossil fuels) accumulates in the atmosphere, available oxygen is decreasing.
Carbon dioxide seems to be almost the total focus of attention in the climate change model as it exists today. After reviewing the results of this study and talking with Dr. Ralph Keeling (one of the lead scientists on the study), it seemed to me that the consequences of atmospheric oxygen depletion should be included in any discussion of atmospheric change.
In order to make sure that I was interpreting the data correctly I asked Dr. Keeling to clarify a few points. I asked him if the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the decrease in oxygen levels were proportional to each other in the sense that this would indicate that the decrease in atmospheric oxygen was a direct result of the buildup of carbon dioxide. His response:
It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.
We are losing three oxygen molecules in our atmosphere for each carbon dioxide molecule that is produced when we burn fossil fuels. Studies of ice cores and recent data from direct atmospheric sampling have shown that there has been a 30% increase in carbon dioxide since the beginning of the industrial age. With that in mind I asked Dr. Keeling how much oxygen has been depleted from the atmosphere in that same time frame. He responded that, "A reasonable estimate for how much O2 has been lost since the beginning of the industrial revolution can be based on the estimated loss due to fossil-fuel emissions, which can be calculated from records of the amount of each fuel type burnt and its combustion ratio. Such records are not readily available online, but I have figures handy:
Total loss since start of industrial revolution
- O2 depletion from fossil-fuel burning through 2004: 35.2 Pmol
- CO2 depletion from fossil-fuel burning through 2004: 26.3 Pmol
- Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
- Published: December 14, 2007
- Type: News
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Culture: Education, Culture: Society, Sci/Tech: Energy/Environment, Sci/Tech: Physical Sciences, Sci/Tech: Science
- Writer: Mike Johnston
- Mike Johnston's BC Writer page
- Mike Johnston's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Yes there are plenty of alternative ways to produce electricity. But. How may of them are as cheap, efficient or easy to operate as what we have now? If consumers WANTED alternative energy business would supply the demand. The story was about what is, not what might be.
"If consumers WANTED alternative energy business would supply the demand."
Is that why there is a waiting list to purchase a Toyota Prius or the fact that Toyota has developed a whole line of their popular vehicles as "Hybrids". Bio-fuels are influencing the way some American manufacturers are building cars & the electric car has already been proven an economic & reliable alternative.
Is that why Solar technology is now used in many homes to cut down on utility bills & state governments actually give people money towards the purchase & installation of solar panels.
Solar technology is even used in my Casio watch so I don't have to replace the battery for 40+ years.
If you haven't noticed, it takes consumers who want it to purchase it then the price goes down for everyone & that translates to what kind of decisions will be made by these large corporations but it is harder for that to happen when people are reporting inaccurately.
Again, I think you need to do alittle more research and include all sides of the story instead of this "Chicken Little" approach...
Is that why there is a waiting list to purchase a Toyota Prius or the fact that Toyota has developed a whole line of their popular vehicles as "Hybrids". Bio-fuels are influencing the way some American manufacturers are building cars & the electric car has already been proven an economic & reliable alternative.
Those are great to the extent of the impact they can have. How many cars are manufactured and sold worldwide each year? How many older cars are on the road? And compare that to how many hybrid or prius vehicles are sold each year. Then factor in all of the jet aircraft, diesel locomotives, ships and tractor trailers worldwide and you see what I mean about the impact of alternatives being very small.
Is that why Solar technology is now used in many homes to cut down on utility bills & state governments actually give people money towards the purchase & installation of solar panels.
Would the majority of homeowners buy solar panels without government funding? No. Are the majority of homeowners buying them WITH government funding? No. China is putting a new coal fired power plant on lie every 2 weeks right now.
Solar technology is even used in my Casio watch so I don't have to replace the battery for 40+ years.
I have one to charge my laptop. Most people don't.
If you haven't noticed, it takes consumers who want it to purchase it then the price goes down for everyone & that translates to what kind of decisions will be made by these large corporations but it is harder for that to happen when people are reporting inaccurately.
I was not inaccurate.
Again, I think you need to do alittle more research and include all sides of the story instead of this "Chicken Little" approach...
I have done a lot of research on alternative energy, climate change and this story in particular. I stand by what I said.
How many cars are manufactured and sold worldwide each year?
Well, if you "did" your research you wouldn't have to ask these types of questions because the amount of hybrids versus standards isn't as far apart as you might think. For example, the month of April(sold): 27,000 Hybrids vs. 33,000 Standard (ofcourse, this is a rough estimate due to geographic location & internet information)
Then factor in all of the jet aircraft, diesel locomotives, ships and tractor trailers worldwide and you see what I mean about the impact of alternatives being very small.
Sure, when people (like you) don't want to report on the huge breakthroughs that countries all over are bringing to the table and have been trying to do since the 70's. Locomotives can run on MagLev(at high speeds),hell,we've figured out how to power a train using cow manure. And so on & so forth...
If being partial is your primary trait when writing than stick by it:
we need to produce and consume ever increasing amounts of energy and so we can't stop using fossil fuels, including coal, without a lot of economic pain because there currently are no alternatives in place to pick up the slack.
Again, this is not accurate!!
First off, the focus of the story was atmospheric oxygen depletion; 1) that it is happening and 2) that it is very likely human induced. It wasn't intended to analyze every point you make except in very general terms.
Well, if you "did" your research you wouldn't have to ask these types of questions because the amount of hybrids versus standards isn't as far apart as you might think. For example, the month of April(sold): 27,000 Hybrids vs. 33,000 Standard (ofcourse, this is a rough estimate due to geographic location & internet information)
And there are how many million vehicles on the road worldwide? 27,000 vehicles is a very small percentage and even hybrid vehicles burn gasoline, just not as much.
Sure, when people (like you) don't want to report on the huge breakthroughs that countries all over are bringing to the table and have been trying to do since the 70's.
Yes and the European countries are way ahead of the United States in this respect.
Locomotives can run on MagLev(at high speeds),hell,we've figured out how to power a train using cow manure. And so on & so forth...
Sure they can but how many trains do? Any yes, methane from poop can run trains or cars or heat your home or even run a full size power plant. Problem is there just isn't enough poop out there to replace fossil fuels(except perhaps on farms and in Washington...). And besides that methane is just another hydrocarbon fuel and the only way that biologically derived hydrocarbons are any better than petroleum is if you don't burn more of them than the environment can take in and recycle.
If being partial is your primary trait when writing than stick by it:
we need to produce and consume ever increasing amounts of energy and so we can't stop using fossil fuels, including coal, without a lot of economic pain because there currently are no alternatives in place to pick up the slack.
Again, this is not accurate!
Yes it is totally accurate. We currently pump 29 trillion gallons of petroleum a year out of the ground(about 67% of which is turned into fuel). What alternative fuel source is in place now to take over that quantity of fuel? None.
Some years ago..i read a report that maintained that our global oxygen content has dropped from a norm of 32% to a stunning 15 to 17 %, my numbers..perhaps less, 13 to 14 % of what was 32 %..
there was mention of an imaginary alien visitor to earth.. discovering fossilised remains of mankind piled one upon the other at sea level.. where they perished fighting for a last gasp of air..while all the debate and insults fly.. our planet.. closed system.. is being polluted beyond repair by greedy corporate neo nazis..corporate rule will kill us all.. then what ?
I would like to know what the current oxygen levels are today and see if we can arrive at a common denominating fact..
like smokers in denial of cancer we seem to be in denial of asphyxsiation due to our refusal to suffer any economic withdrawal symptoms...
rather suffer a cancerous painful death from smoking and a high liner life style until we pass out from oxygen depletion..? 50% of people who die in Canada die from pollution related diseases..anyone awake out there ?? Feeling a little sleepy ?
I'm old and senile, so dont attack me on form or facts.. i admit it has been some time since i read this research article and am not offering a dissertation to the many genius's out there who seem more interested in bloviating against those who do the work to bring about change and suffer their moronic sit upon their belly acher nit picking assed attacks for it. Put up or shut up Guppusminumus..Cerebrium absentius..more like it.!
I dont return to read the flame outs..have fun.. park your planet killing cars..stay home..shoot your self..;-)
Nice work Mike.
I am amazed at the staight line thinking in this article. Never was increasing the plant side of the equation mentioned. Using algae to use up the co2 and then using it to make biofuels.
Andy Zoglman


Covering mainstream music, the New York City indie rock scene and off-Broadway theater productions. Also articles on science, the ongoing effects of climate change, and alternative energy. 




So this is how Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize,huh? Scare tactics can make any passionate Human scream bloody murder.
"...we need to produce and consume ever increasing amounts of energy and so we can't stop using fossil fuels, including coal, without a lot of economic pain because there currently are no alternatives in place to pick up the slack."
With just a 0.14 second Google search, I found alternative energy resources that could definitely pick up the slack if we decided to abandon the use of coal.
I can understand & appreciate your article but maybe you should present both sides of the equation,as best as you can, before you make such statements.