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.
Joel,
I was using the periodicity in relatively small mass extinctions (proposed by David Raup). Such extinctions, most of which are relatively minor, occur every 26 million years (thus Muller’s postulate of Nemesis, the companion start to Sun that is disturbing the orbital stability causing asteroid impacts on Earth).
Large extinctions (50 % extinction of all species) are far less frequent, last one 64 million years ago, before that 200, 201 (or 245?), 360, 444 and 488 millions of years ago. Apart from the two cases that occurred 200/201 or 245 million years ago, such events are pretty far apart. In that sense, the probability of mass extinction from any events including an asteroid impact (other than from lack of oxygen) in the next 10 million years or so is not greater than extinction from oxygen deprivation. But, as you know, I agree with you that we will not there to find out about this if AGW has its way.
Smaller asteroids have been coming here regularly – 10 m size objects hitting earth once a year, 50 m size once every 1000 years, one kM size every 50,000 years, five kM every 10 million years, etc. but no evidence that they caused massive extinctions (like about 50 % of all species). So, such more frequent asteroid impacts need not mean the end of the world.
However, one thing to note that people like E.O. Wilson believe that we are already in the middle of a massive extinction (Holocene extinction, losing 30,000 species a year), http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html even without an asteroid impact.
According to the survey by the American Museum of Natural History, 70 % of all biologists believe that we are in the middle of a mass extinction (primarily caused by the destruction of the biosphere). Please see:
http://www.amnh.org/museum/press/feature/biofact.html
I am sure our friend Smokey will dismiss it as a propaganda.
Ric,
Yes, I noticed x-axis caption, and yes we are fine for few million years unless a drastic reduction of oxygen occurs as 300 million years ago. So, it is good for us to keep a watch on it. But I agree, the original article was unjustifiable in its implication.
Evan,
Sure, it is not a crisis by any means. Just something to watch and see where it is going.
Peter Tatchell writing about the climate? The dear old Grauniad must be desperate. He knows less about climatology and atmospheric physics than my mothers cat. He’s a well known political activist, nothing more or less.
<John McLondon:
Yep. Your link is propaganda. But nice try, and thanx for playing, John. In fact, species are naturally going extinct all the time, as Charles Darwin made clear. Survival of the fittest applies to species as well as individuals. New species are constantly evolving to take their place. No biological niche remains unfilled for long.
For instance, the snail darter is a small minnow that is almost extinct. It is not going extinct because of human actions, but because the world changes, and some species are not adapted well enough to cope. The snail darter was discovered in a few isolated locations. What cause do we have to commit really enormous financial resources to save an almost extinct minnow?
The billion-dollar flood control project and Auburn dam was stopped just short of completion, and right before a serious multi-year drought hit California. Why? Because the enviro lobby demanded that a species of minnow that was already going extinct must be saved at any cost.
Only those possessing extreme arrogance believe that humans know better than nature in cases like a minnow that is going extinct because it can’t compete.
Finally, deliberately or through ignorance, downplaying the likelihood of an asteroid impact is plain wrongheaded. Last century alone, two very small [as asteroids go] impacts hit Siberia, annihilating many square miles of forest and killed a large herd of reindeer. Had they hit any populated area like a city, millions would have been killed. Contrast this very real threat with the entirely bogus AGW/climate catastrophe scam.
We can do something about asteroids. We can do nothing worthwhile about the natural fluctuations of the climate.
REPLY: Ok we are all getting waaayy OT here, no more snail darters, Darwinsim, or asteroids. – Anthony
Smokey says:
Smokey, since you mentioned Charles Darwin and evolution above, I should note that you can find plenty of people on the web, including some credentialed scientists, who would make the exact same claims about evolution that you make here about AGW.
While there may be a small number of scientists (only a few who are actively publishing in the field in reputable peer-reviewed journals) who believe this about AGW…and a larger number of people with various scientific (mainly unrelated to climate science), engineering, and non-scientific backgrounds who believe this, it is not the view of most of the scientists actively working in the field. Nor is it the view of the organizations such as the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, etc., etc. Rather, they believe that the evidence for AGW continues to grow stronger. Perhaps you might strive to learn why they believe this and why their belief is so different from your own.
[By the way, I would agree with you that “Carbon dioxide does not lead to runaway global warming” as the term is usually used by scientists, e.g., an instability such as what happened on Venus. However, I assume you are probably using it (incorrectly…or at least in a non-standard way) to refer to there being net positive feedbacks that amplify the warming to produce an equilibrium climate sensitivity somewhere in the range of the IPCC estimates (e.g., likely between 2 and 4.5 C and very unlikely less than 1.5 C), in which case, obviously I do not agree with you.]
Smokey,
We are not talking about doing something so stupid to save just one species. We are talking about 30,000 species disappearing in a year. These are few comments from the American Museum of Natural History:
“Seven out of ten biologists believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things, and that this dramatic loss of species poses a major threat to human existence in the next century.”
“In strong contrast to the fears expressed by scientists, the general public is relatively unaware of the loss of species and the threats that it poses.”
“This mass extinction is the fastest in Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history and, unlike prior extinctions, is mainly the result of human activity and not of natural phenomena.” …..
Per instruction (appropriately so) I am not going into the details, but I do not agree with your “survival of the fittest” explanation.
CO2 is only one problem. There are many other problems that we have to deal with using appropriate priority – deforestation, climate change, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution, etc. Oxygen reduction may not hurt us immediately, but could wipe out other organisms (many scientists believe the rapid reduction in oxygen caused the extinction of dinosaurs). Ultimately we are talking about our own survival. With global warming, the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum was associated with a minor mass extinction, when global temperature went up by about six degrees or so (of course, a rapid global cooling will do the same).
“Seven out of ten biologists believe…….”
I have read enough of this sort of manufactured, peer reviewed “science”, I have no more capacity for propaganda and false claims.
Bagdad Bob would be proud of our current scientists.
“I have read enough of this sort of manufactured, peer reviewed “science”, I have no more capacity for propaganda and false claims. Bagdad Bob would be proud of our current scientists.”
The question then is, where else do you get reliable information on scientific matters? From un-reviewed blogs, speeches, congressional hearing, … where anyone could say more or less anything without the need to backup their findings?
This is the same scientific community that is giving us new medicines, new materials, new devices, etc etc that is positively changing our lives significantly. When you use their innovations for your benefits and then equate them to Bagdad Bob when you do not agree with them, it appears to be highly disingenuous.
It’s a good thing that Peter Tatchell didn’t know about this sling shot effect hurling ionized oxygen out of the atmosphere — he’d really be going to town on this as yet another reason to huncker down and do everything possible to save the oxygen:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828090715.htm