Trend of atmospheric oxygen (O2) from Cape Grim, Tasmania. This looks serious, right? Read on.
FOREWORD: I had to chuckle at this. This is the sort of story I would expect in the supermarket tabloids next to a picture of Bat Boy. For the UK Guardian to say there is a “oxygen crisis”, is not only ignorant of the facts, but simple fear mongering riding on the coattails of the “CO2 crisis”. Read the article below, and then read the reasons why myself and others are saying this story is worry over nothing.
UPDATE: Physicist Lubos Motl also takes this article and the author to task, here
UPDATE#2: According to the Guardian website: “It is the policy of the Guardian to correct significant errors as soon as possible” For those readers that think this Guardian article needs correction, here is the contact info:
Readers may contact the office of the readers’ editor by telephoning +44(0)20 7713 4736 between 11am and 5pm UK time Monday to Friday excluding public holidays. Email reader@guardian.co.uk, send mail to The Readers’ Editor, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER, or fax +44(0)20 7239 9997. The Guardian’s editorial code incorporates the editors’ code overseen by the Press Complaints Commission.
The oxygen crisis
Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?
Peter Tatchell guardian.co.uk, Wednesday August 13 2008 20:00 BST
The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.
Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.
Read the rest of the story here.
Predictably, once again mankind gets the blame in the article:
Much of this recent, accelerated change is down to human activity, notably the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.
From a mailing list I subscribe to, there’s been a number of comments made about this story. Here are a few:
The O2 concentration of the atmosphere has been measured off and on for about 100 years now, and the concentration (20.95%) has not varied within the accuracy of the measurements. Only in recent years have more precise measurement techniques been developed, and the tiny decrease in O2 with increasing CO2 has been actually measured….but I believe the O2 concentration is still 20.95%….maybe it’s down to 20.94% by now…I’m not sure.
There is SO much O2 in the atmosphere, it is believed to not be substantially affected by vegetation, but it is the result of geochemistry in deep-ocean sediments…no one really knows for sure.
Since too much O2 is not good for humans, the human body keeps O2 concentrations down around 5% in our major organs. Extra O2 can give you a burst of energy, but it will harm you if the exposure is too long.
It has been estimated that global wildfire risk would increase greatly if O2 concentrations were much more than they are now.
Here’s one I remember reading about a long time ago:
Around 1920 when steel production began to expand to what looked like no limit, it was believed (and demonstrated) that the use of coal would consume all the oxygen in the atmosphere in 50 years.
So far, we are still breathing O2, even though we have increased the volume of coal and oil used steadily since then. More worry based on bad science.
For those wanting to brush up on the history of oxygen concentrations though the millenia, I suggest this essay in Science News:
Changes in the air: variations in atmospheric oxygen have affected evolution in big ways
Science News, Dec 17, 2005, by Sid Perkins
But the most interesting perspective on why there is no oxygen crisis comes from this article from Wallace Broecker of Columbia University titled Et tu, O2?
AN OFT-HEARD WARNING with regard to our planet’s future is that by cutting back tropical forests we put our supply of oxygen gas at risk. Many good reasons exist for placing deforestation near the top of our list of environmental sins, but fortunately the fate of the Earth’s O2 supply does not hang in the balance. Simply put, our atmosphere is endowed with such an enormous reserve of this gas that even if we were to burn all our fossil fuel reserves, all our trees, and all the organic matter stored in soils, we would use up only a few percent of the available O2. No matter how foolishly we treat our environmental heritage, we simply don’t have the capacity to put more than a small dent in our O2 supply. Furthermore, the Earth’s forests do not play a dominant role in maintaining O2 reserves, because they consume just as much of this gas as they produce. In the tropics, ants, termites, bacteria, and fungi eat nearly the entire photosynthetic O2 product. Only a tiny fraction of the organic matter they produce accumulates in swamps and soils or is carried down the rivers for burial on the sea floor.
While no danger exists that our O2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining–so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn’t developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling, its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult.
This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling’s measurements showed that the rate of decline of O2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global “greening” by geochemists. Although the details as to just how and where remain obscure, the buildup of extra CO2 in our atmosphere and of extra fixed nitrogen in our soils probably allows plants to grow a bit faster than before, leading to a greater storage of carbon in tree wood and soil humus. For each atom of extra carbon stored in this way, roughly one molecule of extra oxygen accumulates in the atmosphere.
Now remember the graph I showed at the beginning of the article? Here is what Australia’s Ray Langenfelds from CSIRO Atmospheric Research has to say about the Cape Grim O2 measurement.
“The changes we are measuring represent just a tiny fraction of the total amount of oxygen in our air – 20.95 percent by volume. The oxygen reduction is just 0.03 percent in the past 20 years and has no impact on our breathing,” Langenfelds. “Typical oxygen fluctuations indoors or in city air would be far greater than this.”
So there you have it. So much for the “oxygen crisis”. I really wish the media would do a better job of researching and reporting science stories. This example from the Guardian shows how bad science and bad reporting combine to create fear mongering.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Peter Hearnden,
Did you read this paragraph I quoted? It is near the bottom of the Guardians link.
“Evidence from prehistoric times indicates that the oxygen content of pristine nature was above the 21% of total volume that it is today. It has decreased in recent times due mainly to the burning of coal in the middle of the last century. Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities. At these levels it is difficult for people to get sufficient oxygen to maintain bodily health: it takes a proper intake of oxygen to keep body cells and organs, and the entire immune system, functioning at full efficiency. At the levels we have reached today cancers and other degenerative diseases are likely to develop. And at 6 to 7% life can no longer be sustained.”
It would have been helpful if he pointed to a city that has these alleged low O2 levels.
Then we have this:
“Further back, the oxygen levels were even greater. Robert Sloan has listed the percentage of oxygen in samples of dinosaur-era amber as: 28% (130m years ago), 29% (115m years ago), 35% (95m years ago), 33% (88m years ago), 35% (75m years ago), 35% (70m years ago), 35% (68m years ago), 31% (65.2m years ago), and 29% (65m years ago).”
I note that all those time periods were a very warm plant covered world.Possible why Dinosaurs were so big in the first place?
Peter, it was interesting to see how quickly you came up with this description of the website (“What a narrow, intolerant place this is at times)”. It is a good thing you are a true global doom believer because you would never make it otherwise. On a daily basis persons like myself who may question aspects of the Global Warming hypothesis are bombarded with propaganda (along with an occasional bit of scientific data) from the mainstream media. When we dare question the all-knowing climate team of Gore/Hansen we are regularly compare to the lowest forms of life. Some are even threatened with legal consequences. You at least had the opportunity to visit this website, it wasn’t forced upon you like it is for us. So if you think this is a narrow and intolerant place, then you should feel right at home.
In a response to his piece’s comments he asks “I’d be grateful for informed, constructive criticisms – or confirmations” (Funnily the comments are now closed for this article !! – the same day??) and states “if there is a danger from oxygen depletion” it is “quiet a long way off” – exactly where the people of the UK wish you were Peter, especially the “quiet” part.
David, your science journalism career idea has merit and has already been successful in some areas. Witness the plight of the endangered Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus at
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
The tree octopus story is bogus, of course, but it proves the point that if you tell a lie often and loud enough, you can convince some (many?) that it is the truth. A modern corollary to this rule states that if a link to a story appears in the first five items of a Google search, the story IS gospel.
Peter,
it is how “journalists” who post these articles writes.
Sample:
“The rise in carbon dioxide emissions is big news. It is prompting action to reverse global warming. But little or no attention is being paid to the long-term fall in oxygen concentrations and its knock-on effects.
Compared to prehistoric times, the level of oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere has declined by over a third and in polluted cities the decline may be more than 50%. This change in the makeup of the air we breathe has potentially serious implications for our health. Indeed, it could ultimately threaten the survival of human life on earth, according to Roddy Newman, who is drafting a new book, The Oxygen Crisis.”
I am not impressed with how he starts his misleading article.First he starts with a distortion of the CO2 concern.That we must deal with it before …..
Then he tells us that we are paying little attention to the dropping O2 levels.And the implied scaremongering effects of such dropping levels.
It is a dishonest writing because he is comparing one very different climatic epoch from millions of years ago with todays climate.
He writes in a way that is not conductive to reasoned concern about alleged O2 dropping.The lack of actual mathematics and the neglect of any measuring devices to monitor such levels.
He could have done it much,much better.Instead it is so poorly written that Lubos blew it away with basic mathematics at his website.
Peter Hearnden, it’s quite legitimate to treat everything published by the Guardian (and the Independent) on the subject of science as deeply suspect, since both papers have systematically sought to exploit the gullibility of the public to make money by alarming people about the environment. And to characterise that as anti-leftism in the article would be incorrect, as Anthony makes no reference to the Guardian’s political orientation. Of course, it is always leftist media who propagate this kind of doom mongering, since it is not really science but leftwing politics, by means of which they hope to sink industrial capitalism. It’s fatuous for the left to resent being characterised as GW alarmists. They started it. Sure, the right don’t believe them. Only a child would.
Regarding Peter Tatchell, he should be ignored on science issues, but did once attempt a citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe which seemed admirable, if a little over-optimistic. Quite why he thinks he should be taken seriously in this kind of thing is hard to fathom, though I suppose in these hysterical times, anything goes.
Concerning which, nothing seems more resolutely stone age primitive about us than the ease with which we absorb from people (or newspapers) that clearly don’t know very much that ‘we’re doomed’.
Peter Hearnden (09:07:11) :
I think O2 levels are low in cities than in sunlit growing farmland at the same elevation outside of those cities. However, the article says
So, 12% over a major city. That means a drop of 9%, if the drop is caused by combustion, then the CO2 level should go up 9% to 90,385 ppm. I flat out don’t believe that and hereby declare Ervin Laszlo a has-been. Had you or he spent a minute with Google, you’d have found something like http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm which says:
So, if O2 concentrations in a major city reach 12%, I submit it would cease to be a major city and problem will automatically rectify itself.
BTW, I also checked Jos (05:37:25) maths, and reached essentially the identical conclusion – don’t go upstairs tonight, and if you do, by all means open the window. Unless, of course, you live in a major city.
My apologies, I’m usually kinder, but articles like this one reduce the sympathy I have for the financial difficulties of news papers. There’s a lot more accurate information here, I suggest you endeavor to improve this blog instead of defending the absurd.
Peter Tatchell is an expert in only one thing, Peter Tatchell. In the UK no-one, except Peter Tatchell would take anything he said seriously. The Guardian (better known to my generation as ‘The Grauniad’ due to its frequent mistakes) is only taken seriously by Peter Tatchell. The Grauniad is, and always has been, a tabloid in disguise as a broadsheet, usually used by posh dogs as toilet training.
Anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 creating a global heat-wave, anthropogenic depletion of atmospheric O2 causing potential suffocation and anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen creating havoc with the ocean’s environment, homo sapiens will soon pay for its inconsiderate life on planet Earth.
“Prospero’s data plays a central role in a paper that appears in the May 16 issue of Science, “Impacts of Atmospheric Anthropogenic Nitrogen on the Open Ocean”. Spearheaded by Dr. Robert Duce from Texas A&M, the study highlights the importance of the Earth’s nitrogen cycle, and its vital link to the global carbon cycle, especially the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the greenhouse gas responsible for most of the global warming effects observed during the past century.”
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2008/05/22/impact-of-anthropogenic-nitrogen-on-ocean-biology-atmospheric-co2/
When I was gainfully employed I used to test spaces for O2 content.
The instrument had a system for calibration, but to save time, I just breathed out into the instrument sample pipe and usually read a figure of about 17% for my exhaust O2 content.
The instrument calibration system always confirmed it to be working correctly.
Aren’t I lucky compared with the poor sods in the cities?
This excellent post by Watts has many implications and makes me angry.
Although I am a scientist by training, I’ve never stopped to question the allegation that the forests are the “lungs” of the planet. Mostly, I considered the bogeyman of vegetal extinction irrealistic (anyone who ever tried to maintain a piece of land free of regrowth will understand…), but still, under the deluge of (mis-) information, I still had a vague belief that the vegetation did have some significant impact in the available O2 on the planet.
This post shows beyond all doubt that for all practical purposes, it is a non-issue, that vegetation has nothing practical to do with O2, that the claim of forest allowing life (in the context of O2) is utterly bogus.
That’s what happen when we get complacent with ideas!
Another bit of doom mongering noticed has been about the extent of 162 ‘Dead zones’ in the worlds oceans. This item could be more sensibly reported as “Oxygen free areas more extensive than first thought” perhaps?
As for “it’s getting hotter”; according to my relatives, the UK appears to be having a rather cooler and wetter summer than usual.
There is a big difference in the amount of O2 in the air between New York and Denver. People adjust to the difference. Even here in the High Plains of New Mexico, the air is much thinner than at sea level. At first, Mowing my lawn would leave me gasping for breath, but in a short time I adapted and was able to workm all day without rest.
By the way, a molecule of oxygen contains two atoms of oxygen, so 1C+1O2=1CO2.
NO! I am not Tonto from the Lone Ranger series, so the “workm” was only a tpyom.
Hey, Mary
I think you are being a bit harsh on the ‘Grauniad’. Whilst I agree that it’s coverage of environmentalism and climate change, in particular, is exceedingly biased, it’s coverage of politics (with a few exceptions) and social issues such as poverty has, to my mind, always been pretty good. Your characterisation of it as a “tabloid in disguise as a broadsheet” is unfair.
As to Peter Tatchell, he has in the past done much to raise the profile of gay issues and HIV which also informed his anti Mugabe line. As a (non gay) liberal I think there is nothing wrong with that.
His credentials in relation to the science of this particular article are however zilch and I agree with you that he is nowadays all about self promotion.
The OSHA oxygen low limit for entry to a confined space is 19.5%. The lowest I’ve ever measured in over 30 years was 20.4%.
Does anyone really believe that if a city had O2 levels below 19.5% that there wouldn’t be a huge intrusive government response?
I’d like to know where these 12% levels were measured.
BTW, the graph appears to be the Mauna Loa CO2 record reversed.
Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities.
An O2 concentration of less than 16% at STP is necessary to sustain life; below that, humans die. So, I very much doubt that in cities, O2 is down to 12%.
Any Scuba diver would know this.
Typo alert:
Currently the oxygen content of the Earth’s atmosphere dips to 19% over impacted areas, and it is down to 12 to 17% over the major cities.
An O2 concentration of greater than 16% at STP is necessary to sustain life; below that, humans die. So, I very much doubt that in cities, O2 is down to 12%.
Any Scuba diver would know this.
Slightly off topic for this thread, but the importance of the AGW debate is at its most stark, and extreme, in Australia, where a new left government, under the PM Kevin Rudd, is seriously proposing ruining the economy to fight global warming. It is Rudd’s government’s only concrete policy.
Following the battle in Oz is educational. There are more scientists speaking out against AGW, and getting press, in Australia than anywhere else in the world. It parallels the situation in the UK, except more so.
Australia is having so much snow that I expect to see Australia win several medals in teh upcoming Winter Olumpics in Vancouver in 2010.
Ted Annonson
You are talking of Partial Pressure of O2, PPO2. At Standard Temperature and Pressure, for the atmosphere, it is 0.21.
I don’t know what the height of Denver is, but due to the decreased air pressure, it will be less than 0.21, but still greater than 0.16. Aircraft fly at 36,000 feet with a cabin pressure of around 8,600, which yields the minimum PPO2 necessary to sustain life of 0.16. And it probably keeps the passengers docile. Ever wondered why you feel tired after a long haul flight?
Now, as the Denver Broncos play in “Mile High” stadium, I guess the hight for Denver to be around 5,280 feet. Given the logarithmic nature of air pressure, I guess the PPO2 at Denver (just a SWAG) to be around 0.19
Several years ago I had occasion to work on a project at a steel mill east of Chicago. Being that what we were building next to the Blast Furnaces was just down the street from the coke plant, everyone had to be gas trained.
The focus was Carbon Monoxide which was produced in great quantities by the coke plant. (making metallurgical coke from coal) We had to wear a CO sniffer and an Oxygen depletion monitor called a “Cricket” . It was not uncommon if the wind was right to exceed allowable limits for CO in which case we had to evacuate the structure. Along with the CO the CO2 produced sometimes caused the Oxygen level to dip way low. If your cricket went off you had to get the heck out of the area. I have personally seen the O2 level in free air dip slightly below 19%. Of course not everyone is just down the street from a coke plant (1/2 mile) But in localized instances it is possible to displace enough oxygen to make it dangerous.
I do not believe that the article is that crazy. It may not be an immediate crisis, but oxygen level has been going down due to number of causes (deforestation, natural chemical reactions, etc. ) and there is a general agreement among the medical community that health problems will show up in varying degrees when the level falls below 19 % (which is not too far below compared to the current level) and we cannot survive below 7 %. Producing more CO2 is harmful combined with deforestation since a large part of the excess CO2 that is not converted by plants will be dissolved in water and eventually will be locked up as carbonates taking oxygen with it – those oxygen will not be available in the atmosphere.
So, although it is not an imminent crisis, it is worth giving some attention and it is wise to respond accordingly.
“I don’t know what the height of Denver is, but due to the decreased air pressure, it will be less than 0.21, but still greater than 0.16. Aircraft fly at 36,000 feet with a cabin pressure of around 8,600, which yields the minimum PPO2 necessary to sustain life of 0.16. And it probably keeps the passengers docile. Ever wondered why you feel tired after a long haul flight?”
La Paz Bolivia’s airport is 13000 ft + and the city of over 700,000 seems not to have DIED.
“Altitude Sickness” is primarily caused by a drop of CO2 in the blood due to out gassing, resulting in a PH change. The blood becomes too alkaline.
Just too add…..the percentage of O2 remains nearly constant regardless of altitude.
Ah, another crisis to be alarmed about. Now that the temps are declining, we can reassign UHI from Urban Heat Island to Urban Hypoxia Island effect.
I too wonder where they measured the 12% levels. About 25 years ago I reviewed a study on oxygen levels in a lake in northern Alberta. the researchers claimed that several areas of the lake were anoxic, completely devoid of O2. Looking at the charts of water depth and O2 levels, compared to water depths in those areas, it was obvious that the probes they were using were actually stuck in bottom sediments. A few data points were several feet below lake bottom. When this was pointed out the researchers, they admitted that hteir results were skewed. But they presented the data anyway because they felt that they were supposed to prove that the lakes were suffering from human activities. They interpreted their task as proving oxygen depletion, not presenting the real conditions.
I would be very interested to see where the air samples were taken, in what cities, at what time of day, and how the results were generated. Maybe its possible to get such readings at or near the levels where vehicle exhaust is spewed out. I don’t know.