The studies and observations (which were descent btw) you linked are compilations
from 1994 and 1999. The Australian study, reported by Science Daily, is inconclusive imo-
Langenfeld reached his own conclusions based on remnant facts assimilated from Keely's raw data.
Langenfeld's conclusions are based on this supposition :
"However the oxygen measurements shed new light on the extent to which the world's forests and oceans share the task of absorbing half the carbon dioxide generated by burning of fossil fuels. "While the oceans emerge as the slightly larger long-term sink, plants are clearly soaking up more carbon dioxide with time."
"If they weren't, levels of carbon dioxide would be far higher," says Mr Langenfelds.
Almost 10 yrs later, it's common knowledge our oceans are sick and dying. The ph level is rapidly changing to a more acidic level
because of the oxygen depletion in the water compounded with waste dumping, oil spills, the dumping of nuclear waste runoff. Langenfeld felt hopeful our O2 depletion was not a concern because the research he had access to was based on the reliance of our oceans as the largest receptor of CO2 gases. He also factored in the photosynthesis process of plants and forests absorbing CO2 and emitting O2 as balancing factors to support his conclusions. At best, I would say his article is well intentioned. At worst, we know the scale of damage done to the environment over the last 10 yrs is unprecedented.
This from Keeling's link: (1998)
"At present, several research programs are engaged in measuring the O/O ratio of atmospheric CO. These measurements will be useful for validating global-scale numerical models including physiologically based exchanges of HO and CO with leaves and soils. The O/O measurements can be expected to provide information on rates of gross primary production and stomatal conductance integrated over large spatial scales and in variations in these quantities in response to climate change, increasing atmospheric CO, or other global variables."
The above is the latest research available. The research is based on studies done from 1988 to 1994
There is currently NO available information relating to the O2 factor to bring us up to date on the status of the Oxygen ratio/depletion to CO2. Odd isn't it?
The Columbia information contained a little more detailed explanation. However:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htmfrom your link:
" At first glance, this finding appeared to be good news to those worried about the climatic effects of the ongoing buildup of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, for it suggested that during this five-year period an amount of carbon equal to one-third of that burned for energy production had taken up residence in the biosphere. As another third was taken up by the ocean, this meant that between 1989 and 1994 only one-third of the CO2 we produced by burning fossil fuels accumulated in the atmosphere. However,
this enormous bio-spheric storage is likely an anomaly reflecting an unusual climate, perhaps related to persistent El Niño conditions or emissions by the volcano Pinatubo. A burst of plant growth during this period allowed carbon storage to exceed respiratory losses temporarily, but once climate conditions return to normal the products of this burst will be eaten up, releasing this carbon stored in organic matter back into the atmosphere as CO2 gas. Thus, we can't use Keeling's observation as evidence that the biosphere will serve as a major sink for the CO2 we generate. But through Keeling's O2 measurements we now have a reliable means to monitor the ongoing changes in global biomass."
And this:
"The question naturally arises as to whether the Earth has ever experienced an oxygen emergency. Unfortunately, no one has come up with a reliable paleo-O2 proxy. A decade ago, the claim that bubbles trapped in amber preserved 60 million-year-old air generated excitement in the geochemical community, but this claim quickly faded with the discovery that the gas in these bubbles exchanges with that in the surroundings once each thousand years or so. In the absence of a valid proxy,
our knowledge of possible fluctuations in the Earth's O2 reserves is based on inferences made from isotope ratio measurements conducted on the element carbon contained in ancient limestones (calcium carbonate) and on the element sulfur contained in ancient evaporites (calcium sulfate). While not telling us even the sense of the O2 content changes, let alone their magnitude, this approach allows a strong argument that variations in O2 have surely occurred.The underlined section of this paragraph is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, based on what we know..
"The basis for these inferences is that the O2 in our atmosphere polices the flow of oxidized and reduced matter from the ocean atmosphere system to sediments. If for some reason the combined oxidation state of the carbon and sulfur leaving this system does not match that of the material supplied by erosion and volcanism, then atmospheric O2 takes up the slack. If for example too much carbon is being buried as organic residues, the O2 coproduced during photosynthesis accumulates in the atmosphere.
This buildup would eventually allow O2 to invade those anaerobic nooks and crannies where the extra organic matter is being buried and thus restore a balance between the oxidation state of the output and input material.But thanks anyway. I just think it's odd based on the information you provided where scientist have developed (Keeling) a system of measuring O2 in the atmosphere, strangely there is no current research available on the net for review. And of course, I do believe O2 depletion is going to become a problem. Broecher had to truck in liquid O2 for his biosphere experiment within a year, because his plants had a growth explosion due to the ripe environment he provided for them. However the poor biospherians needed to breathe, the plants could not or would not support his theory, of the CO2, O2 exchange being sufficient to support human life in a bubble without a supply of axillary oxygen. (IOW, his experiment, no matter how you look at it failed to prove his theory as sustainable)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
