Posted on 08/16/2008 3:35:25 PM PDT by gridlock
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%.
(snip)
In the 20th century, humanity has pumped increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by burning the carbon stored in coal, petroleum and natural gas. In the process, we've also been consuming oxygen and destroying plant life – cutting down forests at an alarming rate and thereby short-circuiting the cycle's natural rebound. We're artificially slowing down one process and speeding up another, forcing a change in the atmosphere.
(snip)
Surprisingly, no significant research has been done, perhaps on the following presumption: the decline in oxygen levels has taken place over millions of years of our planet's existence...
(snip)
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.
(snip)
Scaremongering? I don't think so. A reason for doomsaying? Not yet. What is needed is an authoritative evidence-based investigation to ascertain current oxygen levels and what consequences, if any, there are for the long-term wellbeing of our species – and, indeed, of all species
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
If the oxygen level in a major city was 12%, all the inhabitants would be long since dead.
Yeah and they all died!
The saturation of oxygen plays a pivotal role in combustion. This is nonsense.
Where do they find these idiots? Journalism school?
The amazing thing is that almost every figure cited in this article is demonstrably wrong, and is easily shown to be so. In order to write this, Tatchell had to just accept every little morsel of moronity at face value, and never bother to verify the story with any independent source, or even any high-school level dumb-dumb Earth Science book.
Add to that if oxygen levels go much over 21% it becomes much more difficult to fight fires. There’s a critical threshold where fires would simply become uncontrollable...
Those high O2 levels in the past allowed foot long cockroaches and dragonflies with three foot wingspans. Today’s levels seem just fine.
If you have done any work in the field at all, you would know that before you reached a major city with 12% atmospheric oxygen, you would be passing cities and towns full of dead people for hundreds of miles.
Peter Tatchell is operating on 12% O2.
Bullshitski
Needless to say, IT’S ALL GEORGE BUSH’S FAULT!
That’s right the Pre Cambrian period had 33-36% oxygen levels... about 250-500million years ago.
The high oxygen levels allowed for giant insects and lush fern forest. However, there were giant flash fires in the atmosphere.
I watch Discovery.
My goodness, there are some serious idiots breathing and wasting oxygen, that’s for sure.
Interesting, yes, journalism school.
And graduating from journalism school means one is well-versed and in complete understanding of all things that one writes about. Priceless....
I have to agree. And the newspaper publishers complain about declining circulation and the fact that people are not reading like they used to in the past. Good God, look what these idiots are offering the public to read! Lies, more lies, error and stupidity. That's what they offer to the reading public. And these "news" organizations have the gall to turn their noses up at the National Enquirer!
And by the way, oxygen is poisonous in large quantity and very corrosive to many things. What a stupid article. And one more thing. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. How can carbon dioxide be a "greenhouse gas?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.