Slashdot Mirror
Our Atmosphere Is Leaking Oxygen and Scientists Don't Know Why (gizmodo.com)
The Earth's atmosphere has been leaking oxygen and scientists don't know why. Researchers discovered that over the past 800,000 years, atmospheric oxygen levels have dropped by 0.7 percent. How exactly did they discover the leak? By observing ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, which contain trapped air bubbles representing snapshots of our atmosphere over the past million-odd years. Gizmodo reports: By examining the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen isotopes within these cores, the researchers were able to pull out a trend: oxygen levels have fallen by 0.7 percent over the past 800,000 years, meaning sinks are roughly 2 percent larger than sources. Writing today in Science, the researchers offer a few possible explanations. For one, erosion rates appear to have sped up in recent geologic history, causing more fresh sediment to be exposed and oxidized by the atmosphere, causing more oxygen to be consumed. Long-term climate change could also be responsible. Recent human-induced warming aside, our planet's average temperature had been declining a bit over the past few million years. [Princeton University geologist Daniel Stolper] added that there could be other explanations, too, and figuring out which is correct could prove quite challenging. But learning what controls the knobs in our planet's oxygen cycle is worth the effort. It could help us understand what makes a planet habitable at all -- something scientists are rather keen on, given recent exoplanet discoveries. Stolper's analysis excluded one very unusual part of the record: the last 200 years of industrial human society. "We are consuming O2 at a rate a factor of a thousand times faster than before," Stolper said. "Humankind has completely short-circuited the cycle by burning tons of carbon."
where would the oxygen come from?
Please tell me you're kidding. Did you sleep through plant biology in high school?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
To all the other responders: Whoosh.
Surely the title alone was a clue that there was implicit /s?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Change "suck" to "blow".
"A bit?" We have been in a continuous ice age for the past few million years. Even the more dire predictions of climate models barely take us back to the already fairly cold temperatures at the beginning of the Pliocene era.
We lost the combination to the air shield? Quick! Someone check their luggage! It might be the same combination.
We'll make great pets
Forests are responsible for a miniscule portion of oxygen production. The bulk comes from algae. There is not less algae in the world today. If anything, thanks to global warming, there is more.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
where would the oxygen come from?
Please tell me you're kidding. Did you sleep through plant biology in high school?
-jcr
You seem to be deaf to that whooshing sound above your head. But, hey .. let's parse it it out anyway.
In photosynthesis we basically have CO2 + 2H2O + photons => [CH2O] + O2 + H2O
Do you notice that there is the same number of O's on both sides of the equation? That means that no O was created in the process, which means your derision about the OP is unfounded as photosynthesis does not create O2, it merely frees O2. EG all the O we need and use already exists in the world.
Thus the OP was correct in stating that levels of O can only go down and not up, as the only place you can normally create new O is in the center of a star. But O could potentially escape into space (as I believe that He does)
The trap you fell for was that TFA is talking about the shifting of O trapped/released from various sources within the Earth's environment as a closed system, whereas the OP was implying O exfiltrating from the Earth. So Apples and Oranges.
All in all it was a pretty good troll. Factually correct, with a huge dose of easily over-looked assumption.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The discussion is about the amount of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere you dumb cunt, not the total number of oxygen atoms on the planets. Perhaps your lonely braincell isn't getting enough.
"Forests are responsible for a miniscule portion of oxygen production"
Algae certainly is the main source, but the amount the forests produce definately isn't miniscule.
That's not climate, that's weather. I'm really sick of these so-called "scientists" pulling this alarmist "research" out of their statist asses to garner yet more of that sweet sweet government giveaway grant money. This isn't "science" -- reproducible results or it didn't happen. Until then, I say we drive it like we stole it.
Or we could just figure that more Oxygen is getting bound up in other compounds. Not a leak, possibly of some concern, but probably not.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Algae is definitely the single big player producing 70-80% of available atmospheric oxygen overall, and trees are a fraction of the remaining 20-30% so they aren't the definitely go-to overall. However, for a study like this it would only require trees to be roughly 7% of global free O2 production for a 10%ish drop in available forests to equate to a 0.7% reduction in atmospheric O2 versus other molecules.
This wouldn't even take into account an increase in the amount of atmospheric oxygen ending up as other molecules due to the rapid increase in different forms of combustion.
I don't have any direct data on global O2 production by forests as a portion of the whole versus other plants beyond algae, nor any on the precise amount of deforestation as a percentage of the whole either, but the proportions required for parents description to be viable seem likely enough that it might be worth considering as a potential answer if anyone bothers looking into it.
Ice Cream has no bones.
How can you still fall for a trolling even after someone explains to you that it's a trolling?
The amount of oxygen is our atmosphere so massive that the contemporary human population of seven billion would have to breathe for twenty thousand years to decrease its share in the atmosphere from 21% to 20%, without replacement. Of course, a mere century ago, the population was just 1.5 billion. Another century back, 0.9 billion. A thousand years back, about 0.25 billion. It's estimated that all the humans who ever lived numbered about 100 billion, that gives you something like a grand total of 0.2 percent of the current oxygen amount in the atmosphere having been consumed by all human beings who ever lived, if each of them lived sixty years on average. Perhaps cattle could multiply it by a factor of several.
Ezekiel 23:20
And iron, aluminium, silicon, and calcium atoms. Carbon and hydrogen are much less abundant than these.
Ezekiel 23:20
Because if not, there is no way I can see that "leaked" is the right word.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
We metabolise about 3kWh of energy per day by breathing, which is equivalent to about 90ml of diesel. All the machinery, heating and so on that we use consumes a lot more energy than that.
If you're including recent figures, then you need to figure in that oceanic pollution is disrupting the life of plankton, which produce most of the oxygen in the atmosphere. I doubt that the figures are recent enough to reflect the recent plankton die-offs, but expect the Oxygen levels of the atmosphere to take a sharp dip over the next few centuries. (it's a pretty slow cycle.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
each tonne of CO2 implying the consumption of about 360 kilograms of oxygen (mostly coal consumption)
Each tonne of CO2 implies the consumption of 720 kg (0.72 tonnes) of oxygen, as there are two oxygen atoms in each molecule of CO2. Burning hydrocarbon fuels however removes even more oxygen than just that which is bound as CO2, since the hydrogen is also burned to H2O. Acyclic (chain) hydrocarbons as commonly found in fuel oils have approximately twice as many hydrogen atoms as carbon atoms, so each tonne of CO2 produced from burning diesel or other fuel oils (or natural gas) will consume 720 kg of oxygen for itself and another 360 kg of oxygen for the H20.
While out hiking in dense old-growth forests, I was curious if there was more oxygen there from being surrounded by so many trees. I wondered if, perhaps, there was enough additional oxygen in the air to have a clinical affect on my metabolism (perhaps I didn't breath quite as fast because of all that extra O2 generated by the forest). Some very quick research revealed that is definitely not the case, because there is simply already such a massive amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. If you took 100% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, which is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and converted every bit of it to O2, you still would not raise the level of oxygen by 1/10th of a percent. So that should give an idea of what a minuscule percentage of the Earth's oxygen is being cycled in organic processes.
Better known as 318230.