NEWS

Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises

Written by Mike Johnston
Published December 14, 2007
page 1 | 2 | 3

So the effect is only ~1 millimeter since the industrial revolution. This is small compared to the other factors that have contributed to sea level rise over this period."

In conclusion, it seems that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen will continue until such time as we stop burning hydrocarbons faster than the environment can absorb the byproducts of the reaction and replenish the oxygen. The only solution to this problem is to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt just how much carbon dioxide that our atmosphere and environment in general can absorb and process back into oxygen and then limit our burning of carbon containing fuels so that we stay within that “safe zone” and using non carbon based energy sources to make up for what we can no longer produce via fossil fuels.

The problem with this solution is that, in order to keep our economy cooking along, 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. The sequestration of carbon dioxide by pumping it under the ground would only dispose of the carbon dioxide with unknown consequences, but would do nothing to stop the depletion of oxygen from the atmosphere. Dr. Keeling agreed that carbon sequestration would do nothing to stop oxygen depletion but reassured me that "... the O2 loss is too small to be much of a concern."

We currently make estimates of how many years we have left before excess carbon dioxide becomes a bigger problem than it already is but we aren’t really sure of their accuracy. However, to the best of my knowledge, we don’t have estimates of how long it might be, if oxygen continues to be depleted at its current rate, until it might become a problem. After all, while most of us may be willing to wait out the effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for a time just to see if we really do get warmer weather and more abundant crops out of the deal; how may of us want to wait and see how little oxygen we can survive on?

page 1 | 2 | 3
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.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
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
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Mike Johnston
Culture: Education
Culture: Society
Sci/Tech: Energy/Environment
Sci/Tech: Physical Sciences
Sci/Tech: Science
All Sci/Tech Articles
Mike Johnston's personal weblog
All News articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — December 16, 2007 @ 14:04PM — Brian aka Guppusmaximus

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.

#2 — December 17, 2007 @ 05:57AM — Mike Johnston [URL]

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.

#3 — December 17, 2007 @ 23:47PM — Brian aka Guppusmaximus

"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...

#4 — December 18, 2007 @ 00:28AM — Mike Johnston [URL]

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.

#5 — December 18, 2007 @ 10:40AM — Brian aka Guppusmaximus

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!!

#6 — December 18, 2007 @ 12:02PM — Mike Johnston [URL]

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.

#7 — March 30, 2008 @ 14:58PM — seculist

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.

#8 — July 8, 2008 @ 18:48PM — Andy Zoglman

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

#9 — August 16, 2008 @ 21:09PM — Kralizec [URL]

So much effort is put into frightening the people with accounts of the dangers of minuscule changes in atmospheric composition, it scarcely seems possible that the decrease in atmospheric oxygen would have been overlooked as a cause of fright, if a case could at all be made. The circumstance that this issue has been left for you and me to discover, suggests that there's not much to it.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/71984)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments