I asked Dr. Keeling for his opinion on this possibility. He said, "I agree qualitatively with your arguments. Some time ago I also calculated the sea- level rise that would be caused by the water generated as a bi-product of fossil-fuel burning. I got quite a small number. I can make a similar calculation here:
O2 lost into forming water: 35.2 - 26.3 = 8.9 Pmol.
Amount of H2O formed: 8.9x2 = 17.8 Pmol
Volume occupied by water formed:
(17.8x10(15) mol)(18g/mol)/(1000000g/m3) = 3.2x10(11) m3.
Resulting sea-level rise (taking ocean area of 3.6x10(14)m2):
3.2x10(11)/3.6x10(14) = 9x10(-4) m
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."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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
14 - gina
what is most worrying is that we are destroying our forest and our ocean environments...thus harming the plant sources that create oxygen for us. It is not just fossil fuel emissions that are messign with the earth, but also habitat destruction and desertification of both land and ocean ecologies. I wonder whether this destruction combined with emissions will create more problems...as the plant and algae engines to absorb CO2 are being destroyed.
15 - duncan
as someone who works, and has worked in confined spaces for the last ten years, i might point out that the safe percentage of oxygen conc. set at 19.5 is not when people keel over, the level needs to drop to 16.5% 19.5% is when the body may start to struggle, if involved in heavy labour. and as has been pointed out this is only in confined spaces, i.e. space were the level of oxygen are directly affected by the persons inside and have a limited open area to replesish the levels.
and having read most of the american and european legislation on confined spaces/oxegen vol levels, again as part of my work, i am of the opinion they were written by people who really didn't understand the subject.
as to the arictile as a whole, interesting, but i tend to agree with the good doctor, the drop in oxygen levels is to small to have agreat bearing.
16 - RZ
The 0.1% decrease in atmospheric oxygen content from the beginning of the industrial revolution up to 2005 (in 250 years or so) stated in this article is just an average estimate... In reality, parts of some dense and polluted cities (in particular located at high altitudes) are already down to 15% of atmospheric oxygen content. The problem is compounded by the fact that some well know city pollutants directly have an additional impact on the capacity of human lungs to smoothly absorb atmospheric oxygen. Hence, the level of people dying from respiratory diseases is globally rising rapidly. Oxygen deprivation also affects brain function and hinders the thought process... and induces violent psychotic behavior...
Has anyone considered that the atmospheric oxygen depletion problem can only accelerate as we more and more rapidly destroy the major oxygen producers on Earth i.e. rain forests and marine phytoplancton?
How long do we really have before we start choking to death? The process has already begun in many cities of the world...
Z
17 - caroline rider
Does someone have a good source, with a complete citation, for what the current level of oxygen in our atmosphere is, on average? Is anyone measuring it on an ongoing basis?
18 - Dr Dreadful
The oxygen content of the atmosphere is about 21%. You don't really need a citation for this - it's pretty much common knowledge.
As for whether anyone is monitoring O2 levels: did you not read the article?
19 - litesong
RZ wrote on Jan 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm:
The 0.1% decrease in atmospheric oxygen content from the beginning of the industrial revolution up to 2005 (in 250 years or so) stated in this article is just an average estimate... In reality, parts of some dense and polluted cities (in particular located at high altitudes) are already down to 15% of atmospheric oxygen content. The problem is compounded by the fact that some well know city pollutants directly have an additional impact on the capacity of human lungs to smoothly absorb atmospheric oxygen. Hence, the level of people dying from respiratory diseases is globally rising rapidly. Oxygen deprivation also affects brain function and hinders the thought process... and induces violent psychotic behavior...
Has anyone considered that the atmospheric oxygen depletion problem can only accelerate as we more and more rapidly destroy the major oxygen producers on Earth i.e. rain forests and marine phytoplancton?
How long do we really have before we start choking to death? The process has already begun in many cities of the world...
======================
litesong wrote:
RZ's post is one of the few good responses to the article posted long ago in 2007. Oxygen missing in the atmosphere is about 1 part in 200 since the beginning of the industrial age & we have dumped 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs of man-made infra-red energy absorbing CO2 into the atmosphere since that time. Tho our machines are more efficient than machines of the past, we have increased our dumping rate ~2.5 times to 3 thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand KGs per century of man-made infra-red energy absorbing CO2. The countries of India & China plan (set before the current world recession) to build 1+ Megawatt coal burning generators per day(?), & we can expect the oxygen depletion rate to increase to 3+ parts per 200 well before the year 2100.
20 - realisticly
Everyone wants to live longer. Look ahead. the planet is dieing and our children will have to suffer the tragedies of a poisonous atmosphere. It is inevitable. Thanks be to fossil fuels and our endless fight to get somewhere quicker and to be a little bit lazier than before. It's the human way.
21 - Inquiring-a
Q for you: Is it possible for an action like planting mangroves in Senegal to produce more oxygen impact positively the level of oxygen in let's say Australia?
22 - gordon
What about development of china and india recalculate!!!!
23 - marc
I love reading the comments to articles as this is where the info is.
Must be a matter of time in general however...
We've methane to contend with due to the Gulf spill. Who knows what's really going on with this due to media wipes. I just surfed in from reports on increasing oceanic dead zones (oxygen and not quite related to methane gush).
But my own sci fi scenario was what if methane etc did saturate large regions - to then get hit with a CME?
I saw one indirect mention of chemtrails. Of course, this dark technology is tied into others such as Haarp and nanotechnology - for our edification.
There's greed... but there are also well planned agendas at work for a particular future. Meaning, this isn't all due to mere greed, accident and or nature.
To and I haven't followed up but have read in various places (P. La Violette, if I got that right) that cosmic rays are becoming an issue. And space (satellite) agencies have had to take measures due to increased solar activity.
Seems Everything is coming down at once in these times doesn't it? So let's not forget about all those underground facilities and Arks around the world. For the elites yet funded by the rabble.
Kind Regards
24 - Peter
Could this be related to the dead birds in AK? Just made me remember miners bird cages.
25 - Dr Dreadful
It was Arkansas, not Alaska, and it appears that the birds flew low to avoid New Year fireworks, got confused and started flying into things (and each other).