Burning hydrocarbons sucks oxygen out of the atmosphere, eventually we will suffocate.
The real inconvenient truth is the oxygen being sucked out of the atmosphere when hydrocarbons burn is not being replaced.
Yes it is. It is called CO2. CO2 through photo synthesis takes the CO2 and makes it into oxygen. This is why it is so stupid that some folks think we need to ban CO2. Nature already has this figured out.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on March 09, 2011, 06:03:48 AM
Yes it is. It is called CO2. CO2 through photo synthesis takes the CO2 and makes it into oxygen. This is why it is so stupid that some folks think we need to ban CO2. Nature already has this figured out.
Bill
this is also one of many reasons why it is so stupid to cut down forests (rainforest or otherwise) while increasing the amount of co2 excreting life (people, livestock). arrogance and stupidity. the plant life in the ocean does the greatest amount of conversion but that doesn't make cutting down the forests any less stupid.
Photosynthesis does not replace oxygen in the atmosphere as fast as it is being used up.
Quote from: brian334 on March 09, 2011, 06:45:26 AM
Photosynthesis does not replace oxygen in the atmosphere as fast as it is being used up.
oh my! why do you claim this? and what evidences or data do you have to substantiate this?
do a google search for this.
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
Quote from: brian334 on March 09, 2011, 11:26:10 AM
do a google search for this.
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
"According to a study (that has only been running since 1989) conducted by scientists from the Scripps Institute there is less oxygen in the atmosphere today than there used to be."
this is not synonymous with: "Photosynthesis does not replace oxygen in the atmosphere as fast as it is being used up."
0diggs
digg
More info 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
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
This mix of CO2 and H2O vapor are the primary gases which come out of your tailpipe. Interestingly, these two byproducts are also the two things which plants need to take in to produce glucose and release oxygen. As long as the environment is in balance no excess carbon dioxide or water vapor will build up. If the environment cannot absorb the amount of these two gases that we produce on the other hand they would remain in the environment as a measurable surplus. I wondered if this water that was being created by burning hydrocarbons could be contributing to the rise I the planets oceans in a meaningful way.
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."
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?
I find it hard to believe that 20% oxygen is fresh air, but at 19.5% oxygen, occupants are in danger of losing consciousness and dying.
Quote from: Bubba1 on March 09, 2011, 09:23:19 PM
I find it hard to believe that 20% oxygen is fresh air, but at 19.5% oxygen, occupants are in danger of losing consciousness and dying.
I agree totally. When folks fly on commercial airlines, the cabin pressure is set to 8,000 feet. Only a fraction of the oxygen there that is at sea level and yet, folks on the plane do not die. This is total BS in my opinion. As is all of the global warming/climate change BS as well.
Bill
General speaking when things are good on earth the atmosphere is good for life. Not to hot, not to cold, not to much junk in the atmosphere blocking sunlight, about the right amount of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere to make the system work.
But some times things change and things are not good on earth.
When that happens life on earth ends.
If you don’t believe me go ask a dinosaur.
More people sucking oxygen out of the atmosphere, burning more hydrocarbons sucking oxygen out of the atmosphere.
Less trees putting oxygen back into the atmosphere.
One good thing about less oxygen in the atmosphere is low oxygen levels make a cheap buzz.
So how is it that the % of oxygen haven't changed since the industrial revolution a few 100 years ago?
I would bet this is a veeeeeeery slooooow process, and it will be too early to determine the reactions in the atmosphere due to a continously increasing industry.
However, CO2 taxes are good business. And for that reason you can only pay enough tickets, and your industry doesn't pollute so much. Also, many countries still are searching for black gold, spending billions of dollars to find more oil to burn, but the politichians force us to pay tickets and taxes because we pollute too much!
After all, I do not think we are able to kill our planet - no matter how much we try. Just pay your taxes and you're fine.
That is the business of greed. So I really hope some one will find a free energy source. Easy to replicate. Cheap to build. So we one day can break down the business of dependence of oil and electricity.
Vidar
Well said Vidar.
Bill
After all, I do not think we are able to kill our planet - no matter how much we try
I agree we are not capable of killing our planet, but we are capable of killing ourselves.
I will ask a simple question, does burning hydrocarbons take oxygen out of the atmosphere. Yes or no?
i once saw a documentary that said over than 1/3 of the carbon dioxide converted into oxygen was done by algea and cyanobacteria in lakes and oceans
also, humans could most like survive with only 1/3 of the amount of oxygen
this implies that even if every tree in the world was cut down we would still be able to live easily, considering trees are in the lesser percentile of oxygen conversion on earth, with all the grass, weeds, flowers, etc
high altitude training suggests that even if oxygen levels were dramatically decreased, the human body responds with increases in white and red blood cells making it possible for sustained life in low levels of oxygen
cow farts are responsible for most of the methane released in the atmosphere putting people way down the list but people freak out that we burn that too
Does burning hydrocarbons take oxygen out of the atmosphere? Technically it takes free oxygen out of the air and converts it to the compound of carbon dioxide. The oxygen is still in the atmosphere, just tied up and chemically bound with carbon. So it becomes poison to humans and animals, yet perfectly suited for use by plants and ocean plankton.
Here is a link for what happens when carbon dioxide levels are raised:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/CO2plants.htm
Plants then grow larger and convert more carbon dioxide and water into sugars and free oxygen.
What I found interesting was that the oxygen released into the atmosphere came from the water, and the carbon dioxide became part of the sugar used by the plants through photosynthesis.
So water, carbon dioxide, photons from the sun, and warm temperatures help the release of greater amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere. Without carbon dioxide, all the photosynthesizing plants would die. They would starve to death.
RR:
That is what I was taught in college. CO2 is NOT a poison but essential to green plants, ie crops. The more CO2, the better the crop yield and the more oxygen produced. Isn't mother nature brilliant? So, one might say that, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more oxygen will result. Within reason, of course.
Bill
Mr. Rat,
I agree that increased levels of CO2 increases photosynthesis, the problem is there is less green stuff on earth to do the photosynthesis. The result of cutting trees and burning hydrocarbons is increased levels of CO2 and decreased levels of O2 in the atmosphere.
If your theory is correct than O2 levels should be increasing. Are they?
Hello Brian,
Another factor to consider is that the oceans and bodies of water on earth all store Carbon Dioxide through its solubility in water. All these bodies of water act like a large storage tank. This storage tank is under the influence of average global temperatures. As the global temperatures rise, the solubility of carbon dioxide gas falls, so it is ejected from the water storage. This, by itself, increases the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Now as to the cause of global temperature rise, that is where the big debate rages. One side says it is caused by human use of hydrocarbons. The other side says the more active the sun, the higher the average global temperature will be. Both sides throw out graphs to try to prove their point. Either way, the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere will rise. So your question leaves out that factor as well. Remember that the increase in plant growth applies to all living plants all over the globe. That means all these plants will respond and begin to increase their output of oxygen. So there will be a delay there as well.
I would say, if you ask my opinion, that as the global carbon dioxide levels begin to rise, all the plants and algae on the earth will start to increase their output of oxygen. This will cause a rise in oxygen levels, but not until after the carbon dioxide levels rise first to stimulate the growth of existing plant and algae life.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
RR2
Mr. Rat,
Global warming does not have anything with this post.
This is about the O2 content of the atmosphere. More people and our domesticated animals sucking O2 out of the atmosphere and burning large amounts of hydrocarbons, combined with less green stuff is reducing the O2 content of the atmosphere. And as the number of people increases it will escalate the problem.
I merely brought up global warming because it will encourage the growth rate of plants and also cause the carbon dioxide in the oceans to be released into the atmosphere. Both conditions will increase the growth rate of plants and encourage the production of oxygen. If you can't see that then I think all you are looking for is an argument to fulfill your ego. I won't play along.
In Chemistry all two way chemical reactions can be looked at as an Equilibrium. It is the conditions of pressure, temperature, and concentrations that determine which direction is favored in a reaction. This is the way I look at the Carbon cycle that occurs between the plant and animal life that exists on this planet. I don't have to explain the cycle, everyone with a little learning knows it. It is an equilibrium that is driven by the energy of the sun.
In chemical equilibrium reactions, when a stress is put on the system, it shifts the production of the cycle from one direction to the other to relieve that stress. If one component in the reaction becomes too abundant, the reaction shifts the other way to use up the abundant component and restore equilibrium. This is how the cycle works and this is how I look at it. Higher Carbon Dioxide levels will encourage the cycle to produce more oxygen and shift the cycle back the other way.
Obviously you think all the oxygen will be used up and we will all die. I disagree, so we can agree to disagree.
Post your proof the O2 level in the atmosphere is increasing.
Waste of Time.