If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
want to get all political here), therefore Carbon is bonding to Oxygen
at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?
Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
happenning?

Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
replaced...this would only compound the problem.

This could just be the indicator (or scientific cross-check) that the
CO2 levels are rising and we are not getting bogus data from any
sources.

So any results / research into this will be greatly and appreciatedly
received.

Anyone with any info?


Zeus

On Feb 2, 9:10*pm, Neo wrote:
If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
want to get all political here), therefore Carbon is bonding to Oxygen
at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?
Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
happenning?

Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
replaced...this would only compound the problem.

This could just be the indicator (or scientific cross-check) that the
CO2 levels are rising and we are not getting bogus data from any
sources.

So any results / research into this will be greatly and appreciatedly
received.

Anyone with any info?

Zeus

The ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is somewhere
in the order of 580 to 1, so we aren't going to run out of oxygen any
time soon

In article
,
Neo writes:
If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
want to get all political here), therefore Carbon is bonding to Oxygen
at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?

No, because the amounts in the atmosphere are so different. The
atmosphere is 20% oxygen, but IIRC well under a tenth of one per cent
carbon dioxide.

Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
happenning?

Any change in the oxygen level would be "lost in the noise". Even a
doubling of CO2 would have a negligible effect on the amount of oxygen.

Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
replaced...this would only compound the problem.

I suppose long-term that might be a problem.

This could just be the indicator (or scientific cross-check) that the
CO2 levels are rising and we are not getting bogus data from any
sources.

It's far easier to measure the increase in the CO2 - and there is
reliable data showing it - than it is to measure the decrease in the
level of oxygen, because the latter will be such a small percentage
change.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Feb 2, 9:39*pm, John Hall wrote:
In article
,

*Neo writes:
If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
want to get all political here), therefore Carbon is bonding to Oxygen
at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?

No, because the amounts in the atmosphere are so different. The
atmosphere is 20% oxygen, but IIRC well under a tenth of one per cent
carbon dioxide.

Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
happenning?

Any change in the oxygen level would be "lost in the noise". Even a
doubling of CO2 would have a negligible effect on the amount of oxygen.



Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
replaced...this would only compound the problem.

I suppose long-term that might be a problem.



This could just be the indicator (or scientific cross-check) that the
CO2 levels are rising and we are not getting bogus data from any
sources.

It's far easier to measure the increase in the CO2 - and there is
reliable data showing it - than it is to measure the decrease in the
level of oxygen, because the latter will be such a small percentage
change.
--
John Hall
* * * * * *"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
* * * * * * from coughing."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

Its 2094000 ppm of oxygen versus around 360 ppm of carbon dioxide at
the last count! For us humans as long as the oxygen value stays above
about 180000 ppm, we should not have any breathing difficulties (at
sea level). However, a carbon dioxide level of greater than 5000 ppm
would exceed current safe exposure limits for breathing in this gas.
Mind you if it reached that level, we'd all be doomed well before that!

Ian H wrote:

Its 2094000 ppm of oxygen versus around 360 ppm of carbon dioxide at
the last count!

2 million parts per million?!!


--
Brian Wakem

"John Hall" wrote in message
...
| In article
| ,
| Neo writes:
| If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
| want to get all political here), therefore Carbon is bonding to Oxygen
| at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
| falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
| reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?
|
| No, because the amounts in the atmosphere are so different. The
| atmosphere is 20% oxygen, but IIRC well under a tenth of one per cent
| carbon dioxide.
|
| Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
| happenning?
|
| Any change in the oxygen level would be "lost in the noise". Even a
| doubling of CO2 would have a negligible effect on the amount of oxygen.
|
| Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
| not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
| replaced...this would only compound the problem.
|
| I suppose long-term that might be a problem.
| ...
|

Long enough term that would indeed be a problem. Our neighbouring planets
in our solar system have atmospheres consisting largely of carbon dioxide.
One (Mars) also has a surface consisting largely of rust (iron oxide).

Oxygen is a very reactive gas, and so the composition of our atmosphere is
unstable. Without the good efforts of plants, all the oxygen in the
atmosphere would over a period of time combine either with carbon or
something else (silicon to make sand or iron to make the rust which give
certain rocks that red colour) and no free oxygen would be left. The fact
that there is so little carbon dioxide in comparison to free oxygen shows
just how efficient our green friends are.

So if any alien spacecraft is approaching and they have a spectrograph on
board, they will know long before they get here that Earth is a living
planet, because otherwise they would not be able to detect the spectrum of
so much free oxygen in our atmosphere.
--
- Yokel -

"Yokel" posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

In article
,
Ian H writes:
Its 2094000 ppm of oxygen

One too many zeroes there!

versus around 360 ppm of carbon dioxide at
the last count! For us humans as long as the oxygen value stays above
about 180000 ppm, we should not have any breathing difficulties (at
sea level). However, a carbon dioxide level of greater than 5000 ppm
would exceed current safe exposure limits for breathing in this gas.
Mind you if it reached that level, we'd all be doomed well before that!

Indeed.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Feb 2, 9:10*pm, Neo wrote:
If the CO2 in the atmosphere is building (for what ever reason, don't
want to get all political here),

The only thing that is political about the rising level of CO2 in the
atmosphere was George W. Bush's attempt to end the measurements of
atmospheric CO2, begun by Charles Keeling in 1958 on Mauna Loa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
They now show that the level is nearly 390 ppm, rather than the 360
ppm quoted by John Hall (IanH), and ~40% higher than the pre-
industrial level of 280 ppm.

at a ratio 1:2. so surely the O2 levels of the atmosphere will be
falling at the same rate? Should we not be overly worried about
reducing O2 rather than increasing CO2?
Does anyone here know of any research and/or results for this
happenning?

Keeling's son, Ralph, has been investigating Oxygen levels which have
been falling:
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/images/ALLo.pdf
1 mpeg in the N2/O2 ratio = 0.2 ppm of Oxygen, so the drop of around
400 mpeg = fall in oxygen of about 80 ppm, probably twice the rise in
CO2 over the same period, as you predicted. With a level of O2 at
around 200,000 ppm this has little effect on animal life.

Add the fact that de-forestation is happening (so we are told...again
not wanting to be all political), then any O2 is not being adequately
replaced...this would only compound the problem.

There is no doubt that the Amazon jungle is being cleared for farming.
You can see it in the satellite photographs. and since they are fairly
recent, then that gives you an idea of the speed and severity of that
problem. However, their effect on the CO2 levels is included in the
measurements, obviously.

The problem with the clearing of the jungles is not really the amount
of CO2 produced - it is that the trees are no longer there to remove
CO2. Moreover the soil that is left may release methane, a more
powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The jungle floor also
acts as a reservoir of water shaded by the canopy. Without that
canopy the water will be lost and a desert environment will be
created. Replanting the trees might reverse that effect, but the loss
of biodiversity will lead to the extinction of animal species which
can never recover.

This could just be the indicator (or scientific cross-check) that the
CO2 levels are rising and we are not getting bogus data from any
sources.

I have only mentioned Mauna Loa because that is the most famous, but
CO2 is being measured at other sites throughout the world as is O2,
which can be seen on those charts.

So any results / research into this will be greatly and appreciatedly
received.

Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming is not a political scam got up by the
scientists. You should no believe everything you read in the
newspapers, especially the Daily Telegraph!

Cheers, Alastair.

In article
,
Alastair writes:
The only thing that is political about the rising level of CO2 in the
atmosphere was George W. Bush's attempt to end the measurements of
atmospheric CO2, begun by Charles Keeling in 1958 on Mauna Loa
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
They now show that the level is nearly 390 ppm, rather than the 360
ppm quoted by John Hall (IanH)

I certainly didn't quote 360ppm, if only because I couldn't remember the
exact figure and was too lazy to look it up. I think I played safe and
said something like "well under a tenth of one per cent". Someone else
gave the 360 ppm figure.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

SNIP
There is no doubt that the Amazon jungle is being cleared for farming.
You can see it in the satellite photographs. and since they are fairly
recent, then that gives you an idea of the speed and severity of that
problem. However, their effect on the CO2 levels is included in the
measurements, obviously.

The problem with the clearing of the jungles is not really the amount
of CO2 produced - it is that the trees are no longer there to remove
CO2.

Cheers, Alastair.

It always amazes me how deforestation seems to take such a back seat
in the AGW debate. You would think this is a part of the problem it
would be easiest to deal with. If we are not able to control the rise
in CO2 emissions (and that certainly appears to be the case) then
removing a major sink down which it goes seems particularly crazy.
It's a bit like blocking the drains during a thunderstorm.

It's not just the Amazon, the situation is arguably worse in
Indonesia. The Guiness book of records says Indonesia holds the record
for the fatest rate of deforestation. Of the 44 countries which
collectively account for 90 percent of the world's forests, the
country which pursues the highest annual rate of desforestation is
Indonesia with 1.8 million hectares (4.4 million acres) of forest
destroyed each year between 2000-2005. Indonesia has lost 72 percent
of its intact ancient forests.

Graham
Penzance