Depleting Oxygen

reply to post by VIKINGANT
I'd really like to see your source on this news article. Sorry to pre-judge, but it sounds like another sensationalized story from someone who has no concept of physics.

Yes, we have been losing atmosphere (not just oxygen) into space as long as we have had an open atmosphere. There is nothing holding it in except gravity. But gravity is the reason we even have an atmosphere. Any atmosphere that leaks away, does so very very slowly, and the vast majority is probably recaptured shortly thereafter, due to the gravity of the planet.

As for the earth's magnetic field accelerating oxygen, Johnmike above has already mentioned that O2 is diatomic. It has no overall magnetic or electric field,and would therefore not be affected by magnetism. Your excerpts also seem to state that oxygen is the only thing escaping. The atmosphere is composed 78% of nitrogen (N2). Is there some sort of filter sitting out in space that is stopping the N2 and allowing the O2 to escape? If so, we built it; it is most certainly not natural.

If we are experiencing a decline in O2, it is simply being consumed in some other compound. It is not pouring out of a hole in the sky.

I am really used to seeing better information from you, guy.

TheRedneck

I suppose that some of you seem to think you're smarter than the people who get paid to study this stuff. There is verifiable evidence that the earth's oxygen levels are depleting. However, in a world where everyone seems to want to be correct it is no wonder that they continued to hold onto preconceived notions.

Oxygen Depletion Zones In Tropical Oceans Expanding, Maybe Due To Global Warming
ScienceDaily (May 2, 2008) — Scientists confirm computer model predictions that oxygen-depleted zones in tropical oceans are expanding, possibly because of climate change. An international team of physical oceanographers including a researcher from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego has discovered that oxygen-poor regions of tropical oceans are expanding as the oceans warm, limiting the areas in which predatory fishes and other marine organisms can live or enter in search of food

Looky,looky

[edit on 27-9-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

This new article is completely unrelated to the original premise of your thread - the false notion that one molecule of CO2 uses two oxygen molecules.

Make a new thread if you want a new topic because the last one you posted might make sense. Just glanced over it since I have to go.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

I looky-looky'd.

Now heary-heary.

This is not about someone trying to be smarter than anyone else. It's about facts/research vs. scare tactics. If there are areas of oxygen depletion growing in the oceans, the cause is not automatically Global Warming. If an ice shelf falls off, it is not proof of Global Warming. It is evidence of a change in conditions, which may or may not be caused by a particular theory.

In this case, assuming the accuracy of the report, where is the oxygen going? It is not disappearing; there is no vanishing act allowed in science. Oxygen does not disappear; it can be converted to more complex oxygen-containing molecules. The first question is where is the oxygen going?, not how can Global Warming cause this?

Get some facts and I'll look into the story with some interest. This is not research, nor is it science. It is fear tactics masquerading as such. I don't do pseudo-science.

TheRedneck

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Okay now. I mean, come on. Either you're trying to provoke responses so you get more points for your thread, or you're playing some kind of ego game. In either case, get out more or something. God knows I have to...

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

you know the current share of O2 is 21%, you also posted that 7% is the limit for human consumption, although that's probably only true on the short run and therefore too low a figure. atmospheric oxygen is a bulk gas (along with nitrogen) changes in it concentration will therefore be imperceptably small.

as for your article, it's about dissolved O2 in ocean water.

The researchers found through analysis of a database of ocean oxygen measurements that levels in tropical oceans at a depth of 300 to 700 meters (985 to 2,300 feet) have declined during the past 50 years. The ecological impacts of this increase could have substantial biological and economical consequences.

..which has of course much more to do with vertical currents than atmospheric oxygen concentrations.

Back in the 1950's people would laugh, if you said people of the future would buy bottled water for more than two dollars a pint.
I'm not laughing that people of our future will be buying, personal carry along bottles of oxygen for fifty dollars a bottle.
Today we have air purifiers in our homes.
Tomorrow, bottled oxygen will have to be added into our air conditioning and heating systems.
Kind of gives new meaning to your Father yelling at you to close the door, because you're letting the oxygen out !


[edit on 28-9-2008 by Ravinsomniac]

reply to post by Ravinsomniac



Well, you know, there are a lot of things that we wait until the last minute to do anything about. Look at the fuel problem now. We are just now coming o a common consensus that an alternative needs to be developed. It has been an issue for the last 30-40 years.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


Hey I did some research and found out the problem isn't anything to worry about for now...

Here is the main source... Source with links

Now, for your specific questions. First let me say that I wouldn't be too
worried yet, especially about the O2. The concentration of oxygen in the
atmosphere is greater than the human lung's capacity to remove it. When
you exhale, you release not only CO2 and N2 but a significant portion of
the O2 you just breathed in. Although the process is concentration driven
(ie the higher the O2 concentration, the more readily O2 is absorbed into
the blood stream) I don't believe that levels have gotten low
enough to cause difficulty breating. Secondly, O2 is a constantly
renewable resource. As long as there are plants living on this earth there
will be production of O2 - and by plants I mean not only trees and grass
and other terrestrial species, but also all the photosynthesizing aquatic
organisms. Often people don't realize what a HUGE part these creatures
play in the global cycling of all the most important elements. In fact,
some scientists believe that deforestation in certain areas of the world
and the resulting increases in CO2 will stimulate productivity in other
areas of the world including the oceans (note: this is one theory of many
and I want to be clear that I'm not trying to endorse one idea over
another - frankly, I'm not an expert on this topic and can't give you a
fair evaluation of all the current theories).

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Ravinsomniac

 

Well, you know, there are a lot of things that we wait until the last minute to do anything about. Look at the fuel problem now. We are just now coming o a common consensus that an alternative needs to be developed. It has been an issue for the last 30-40 years.

You really think we waited? I'd say we were and are held back and more or less forced to consume a single fuel... It's greed man, plain and simple... Develop the resource, control the market and hold back other technologies... Haven't you seen Blood Diamond? The diamond trade, where the dealers buy up all the diamonds so they can control the market and raise prices... Anyway, i understand your pain and how you feel, but you have it wrong... We have not waited for anything we've just been held back...

The story really lacked a good scientific foundation. The sample is far too small. There aren't enough points in the study and it doesn't cover a long enough period of time. It also fails to establish the cause of the decline. You can guess if the cause is pollution, land cover changes, etc. There are far too many variables. Even if all that was established the story doesn't cover how long it would take for oxygen depletion to become an issue.

Is it 5 years? 50 years? 500 years? 5 million years maybe?

With the very small sample we can't tell if this event is isolated. How many samples did they discard that perhaps told a different story? How does this change compare to changes 50 years ago or longer?

reply to post by Indy


You know, one of the problems that I have with the "scientific process" is that it often times seems like a guesstimation to me.
I mean, they don't really know what it was like 60 million years ago on earth.

Yeah, they come up with all of these "core samples" and data sheets, but really, at least to me, that is not evidence that they KNOW anything really.


[edit on 6-10-2008 by SpeakerofTruth]

I don't think Earth is this fragile. Many times before when she was overburdened, she didn't die, she took care of the problem her own way. If we become too big of a burden, she will just kill us and start over. Ice ages, storms, ecosystem failure. We will die off long before the Earth does. I think we don't realize sometimes that the Earth has been around far longer and has seen more species come and go than we probably even know of. Humans will be no different. A few good storms, some earthquakes, a few well-placed tsunamis and the Earth has drastically reduced the problem. Sure, we are hurting the Earth, and it will cause problems in weather and gas levels, but that's only bad for us, the changes we cause aren't the changes that signal a decline in the Earth, but an awakening of the Earth's natural detoxification.

reply to post by Thewayshemoves



Oh.I agree. I just think tht it is unnecessary. I think that there are things we can do as inhabitants to prevent such measures being taken.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
reply to post by Thewayshemoves

 

Oh.I agree. I just think tht it is unnecessary. I think that there are things we can do as inhabitants to prevent such measures being taken.

Getting people to believe, then getting them motivated is probably the hard part there.

reply to post by Thewayshemoves



Well, as I said previously, it seems to me as though people are never "motivated" to do anything until the last second. It's sad, but true.