Oh good grief 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   tidal Posted 4:21 am
   15 Aug 2008

   Mercifully...mercifully, one of the commentators eventually pointed to some of Ralph Keeling's pertinent research on the topic...
   For anyone interested, this seminar by Ralph, "Understanding Atmospheric Oxygen: The Other Half of the Global Carbon Dioxide Story" will help you "breathe" (oxygen!) a little easier. Specifically, between minutes 33:00 and 35:00. We don't have an oxygen problem. We have a CO2 problem.
   This was not one of the Gruaniad's finer moments.
   (By the way, Ralph's full presentation is just great, as are many of the other videos at the UCSD - Scripps Institution of Oceanography series here.

   Permalink

2. 

   fermiparadox Posted 4:40 am
   15 Aug 2008

   Good grief, indeedIn the case of coal, every emitted molecule of CO2 has replaced one molecule of O2, and two in the case of methane. Something in between for oil. CO2 has increased by 100 ppm, so about 100-200 ppm of O2 have been lost.
   Scaremongering like this is really counterproductive.
   
   

   Permalink

3. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:44 am
   15 Aug 2008

   209746 O2 + 280 CO2 + 100 C -->Actually, to get ~380 molecules of atmospheric CO2 where formerly there were 280, more than 100 atoms of carbon have had to be burned because of absorption by the sea. But as best I recall, less than twice more. Supposing it did take just twice as many, this, in ppm, would be approximately the deal so far:
   209746 O2 + 280 CO2 + 200 C  --->
   
   209546 O2 + 380 CO2 + 100 marine CO2
   Ideally one would account also for the oxygen that ended up in water when the hydrogen in fossil fuels was burned. That might knock the right-side 0.210 dioxygen fraction down to 0.209.
   Tatchell needed to begin his column, "I am not a scientist ..." and then stop. Perhaps some others of his columns have been less abusive of privilege.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996

   Permalink

4. 

   GRLCowan Posted 4:47 am
   15 Aug 2008

   Oh no ...'Tidal' misspelled 'Grauniad'!

   Permalink

5. 

   fermiparadox Posted 5:49 am
   15 Aug 2008

   GraphicHere is a graphic about the decreasing oxygen since about 1990. It is in pretty good agreement with the assumption that every additional CO2 molecule means about 1-2 molecules of O2 have been replaced.
   It's the CO2 we have to worry about, not the lack of O2. I doubt there are enough fossil fuels reserves to make a dent that matters for O2.

   Permalink

6. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 10:45 am
   15 Aug 2008

   what about deforestation?What has always worried me is deforestation, and also decline of algae, because remember, plants make oxygen, without them the atmosphere would revert back to an oxygen-less gas (that's part of the Gaia theory, also).  I remember reading somewhere that the change in oxygen is so slow that we don't have to worry about it, but it's the production side of oxygen that worries me.

   Permalink