Amazon fires: Oxygen supply not threatened

[CharonY]

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

How much of that oxygen in the atmosphere do you calculate was generated WITHOUT the normal corresponding intake of CO2?  

Which is of course a different claim to:

Quote

In addition, the raising of CO2 levels would aid photosynthesis in the ocean, pumping more oxygen back into the atmosphere.

Which was shown to be inaccurate for reasons outlined above. Indeed 

 

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

Yes of course. The actual surplus oxygen that has built up over millions of years is the result of organics that turned into coal, or oil or gas etc, and was kept away from the microbes that would break them down using up the available oxygen in the cycle. 

Is part correct (the two big oxygen things are carbon but also metal burial). But that does indeed show the issue with the original claim. If increase of CO2 pumps more oxygen into the atmosphere, eliminating it should reduce it. As I have mentioned, for some plants CO2 increase does increase oxygen splitting, for others it does not. And this is of course due to the fact that photosynthesis is not a singular reaction whose equilibrium can be shifted by changing the reactants (as claimed). In fact, this situation is precisely one of the reasons why one needs to understand the mechanism to make sense out of it.

With regard to oxygen atmosphere, the net balance is of course due to the combined actions of oxygen production (mostly photosynthesis) and the sinks resulting in removal. As mentioned correctly, burying unoxidized carbon but also other compounds, specifically pyrite are major drivers of keeping oxygen in the atmosphere. But of course the cycles are complex. Currently we see strong increase in CO2 but a weak decrease in oxygen, for example. It is hypothesized that over the last million year or so, more pyrite and organic carbon is being exposed to the atmosphere due to erosion, and thereby sink more oxygen, for example.

[John Cuthber]

In practice, it's likely that, if there was enough carbon  containing fuel on the Earth's surface, before we run out of oxygen we would die from carbon monoxide.

 

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Endy0816]

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

Yes of course. The actual surplus oxygen that has built up over millions of years is the result of organics that turned into coal, or oil or gas etc, and was kept away from the microbes that would break them down using up the available oxygen in the cycle. 

If I remember rightly, there have been times when the oxygen levels were significantly higher, allowing giant insects like enormous dragonflies to exist. 

But there's just the one involved in producing it. In significant quantities anyway.

There's an issue in that we need oxygen roughly between 19.5% and 22%. As CO2 levels increase the oxygen percentage will naturally drop.

More immediate concerns(vanishing land and food disruption), but low oxygen zones are a real possibility down the line.

If we evolved to X we really need to try and keep things about the same as they were.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Endy0816

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, Endy0816 said:

There's an issue in that we need oxygen roughly between 19.5% and 22%. As CO2 levels increase the oxygen percentage will naturally drop.

There really is not an issue with oxygen dropping. There is roughly 525 times as much oxygen in the atmosphere as CO2. To double the CO2, you only need to use about 0.2 % of available oxygen. As the current level of oxygen is about 21% there is no prospect at all of problematic levels of oxygen. It really would be the CO2 that was the problem, if that ever happened. 

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

There really is not an issue with oxygen dropping. There is roughly 525 times as much oxygen in the atmosphere as CO2. To double the CO2, you only need to use about 0.2 % of available oxygen. As the current level of oxygen is about 21% there is no prospect at all of problematic levels of oxygen. It really would be the CO2 that was the problem, if that ever happened. 

That's only outdoors at sea level unfortunately.

They're normally linked, but even with just CO2 increasing and O2 held constant, you'll see the O2 percentage level drop.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

That's only outdoors at sea level unfortunately.

They're normally linked, but even with just CO2 increasing and O2 held constant, you'll see the O2 percentage level drop.

With CO2 at about 400 ppm, even a doubling of C02 would have an insignificant change on O2 levels. Even multiplying the CO2 by 10 would change the amount of O2 by less than 1% (looking just at the levels of those gases, ignoring other effects caused by increasing CO2).

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

With CO2 at about 400 ppm, even a doubling of C02 would have an insignificant change on O2 levels. Even multiplying the CO2 by 10 would change the amount of O2 by less than 1% (looking just at the levels of those gases, ignoring other effects caused by increasing CO2).

It's the areas that are already low that are the problem.

La Paz, Bolivia has about 2.7 million living at 13.2% for instance. We can  reasonably expect Chronic Mountain Sickness numbers to climb.

It's really the same situation as with low lying areas, ideally we keep everything as it has been.

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Endy0816 said:

It's the areas that are already low that are the problem.

Really? A change from 13.2% to 13.19% is going to be a problem? (Even if that happened, which isn't obvious as the system is far more complicated.)

[mistermack]

The real problem with burning the Amazon is that it's burning the AMAZON !! A world treasure that's taken millions of years to reach this level, and god knows how many species being driven to extinction, as well as the rightful human residents being driven out. The world should be imposing massive sanctions on the country, till it stops. 

After all, they've crippled Venezuela, just for telling the yanks to piss off.