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
Estimated O2 content of preindustrial atmosphere: 37050 Pmol
1 Pmol = 10^15 mol
"So the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1, 2005 would have been (35.3)/(37050)x100 = 0.095% of the preindustrial amount."
"For the past 15 years, we have direct measurements of the decrease. But the observations before 1990 aren't good enough to draw inferences. Hence the estimate based on industrial emissions is about the best we can come up with."
Think about that. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have removed .095% of the oxygen in our atmosphere. True, that is only a tenth of one percent of the total supply, but oxygen makes up only 20% of the atmosphere. I looked up safety rules regarding oxygen concentrations and according to OSHA rules on atmospheres in closed environments, "if the oxygen level in such an environment falls below 19.5% it is oxygen deficient, putting occupants of the confined space at risk of losing consciousness and death." What happens if the world's atmospheric levels of oxygen fall to 19.5% or lower? Are we all going to have to carry little blue oxygen tanks with us to survive? Not a pleasant possibility.
Plants and certain bacteria take in carbon dioxide, combine it with water to form glucose and produce oxygen as a byproduct in the photosynthesis reaction. The current increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere indicates that this cycle is no longer in balance. It shows that we have reached the point where the biosphere of the planet can no longer process all of the carbon dioxide that we are producing.
When hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline are burned in air, gasoline (C8H18) and oxygen (O2) join in an explosive reaction. This reaction releases the energy which we use to propel our vehicles. The two main products of this chemical reaction are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The chemical reaction for the combustion of gasoline (chemical name: isooctane) looks like this:
C8H18 + 12.5 O2 --> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
Article comments
1 - 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 - Mike Johnston
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 - 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 - Mike Johnston
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 - 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 - Mike Johnston
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 - 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 - 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 - Kralizec
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.
10 - comment
On wiki, I found the atmosphere to contain 20.95% oxygen. In order to drop to 20% the amount of oxygen needs to be reduced by 4.5%. This is 45 times your estimented reduction since the preindustrial era, and still above the 19.5% causing proplems according to OSHA rules.
If we are indeed losing three O2 molecules for every CO2 molecule produced, such a reduction in oxygen levels by burning fuel will would add 0.95/3=0.32 to CO2 levels. This would result in an increase of 824% of the current CO2 level of 0.0384%.
This is probably why rising CO2 levels get more attention then reduced O2 levels.
11 - Richard
I'm afraid this post is full of inaccuracies.
1. We have not removed 0.095% of the Oxygen from the atmosphere. This is the amount we have theoretically consumed due to industrial consumption.
It does not take into account the Oxygen ADDED by living organisms, who were responsible for our atmospheric oxygen in the first place.
In "direct" measurements, which are not really direct, over a 10 year period, from 1991 to 2001 one station calculated a total decline of 0.0003%, which means that the living eco-system has not only kept natural oxygen consumption in balance, but for all practical purposes has supported our massive industrial consumption also. Dr Keelings opinion that "the oxygen loss is too small to be much of a concern" is correct.
2. The worlds oxygen levels are not likely to fall to 19.5% or lower, BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE, you can rest easy, we are not likely to lose consciousness or die. OSH standards for confined spaces do not apply to the open atmosphere. In a confined space, like an underground cave, a well, a submarine or the space station, every breath you take ups the CO2 content of the space, this is not true of the open atmosphere.
A drop of 19.5% from the current 20.95% represents a 7% drop approximately. Atmospheric pressure falls about 3% for every 1000 ft in altitude. Applying Boyle's Law at an altitude of a mere 2500 ft the atmospheric oxygen would be less than 19.5% of the amount at sea level and at 2500 ft we feel just fine.
The Tibetan Plateau has an average height of 15,000 ft. At that altitude the Oxygen levels are a mere 11.5% of that at sea level and humans have adapted there just fine too.
On Mt Everest at 28,000 ft the O2 levels are are less than 3.5% that at sea level and it has been climbed many times without oxygen.
Too much oxygen causes fires and shortens ones life - so rest easy it is not all doom and gloom.
12 - Michael
As the article states, the change in the oxygen concentration during human history is essentially unchanged, particularly in context to the planet's history.
To put it all in context, there is a nice curve of the oxygen concentration of Earth over that last billion years.
After the Precambrian, the outgassing of oxygen from the oceans had begun, the oxygen around the beginning of the Cambrian jumped from 3% to 12%, as finally all the oxygen sinks were saturated. During the Silurian and Devonian, plants conquered the land, while the animal kingdom is still almost exclusively limited to the water. This caused a further rapid and continuous increase in oxygen concentration. The during this period, oxygen concentration reached 35%, which is why insects of that period were huge by todays standards. (Insect maximum size is oxygen diffusion limited.) Reptiles amphibians first settled the land at this point as well.
Massive volcanic activity caused the Permian-Triassic transition which not only knocked the oxygen concentration down to 15%, but also caused the largest mass extinction in the Earth's history. The oxygen concentration recovered over a long period and by the mid-Jurassic reached 26%, in the Cretaceous probably even 30%. During this period was also when the largest dinosaurs existed.
The end of the Cretaceous period is represented by an asteroid impact and a climate marked with mass extinctions. 40 million years ago the oxygen content was only 23% and had the current value of 21% before 25 million years.
13 - gumshoe2
According to reports in 2003, the oxygen content was down to 14%..and is dropping. Current C02 is at 387.6% and rising. Get the weather controlling planes OUT of the AIR space, and we MIGHT make it till 2012