4 ms·

"The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere

"The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year."

leptoniscool 5y ago
That's a 0.0019% decrease, not very significant is it?
- cgugino 5y ago
  Not today, but the trend is worrying, especially if the rate increases. What will this look like in 50 years? 1,000?
  - bioinformatics 5y ago
    50 * 0.0019% = 0.00095 1000 * 0.0019% = 1.9%
    - booi 5y ago
      Previous commenter said if the loss accelerates. Larger and larger changes each year would be more than worrisome.
      - ljf 5y ago
        I agree, we should consider that further oxygen loss could come from long burning wild fires etc, should the environment lend itself to a higher propensity to them. This could both burn oxygen and remove plants that would therefore not create and replace oxygen (in the short terms at least). I am sure there are some weird feedback loops we are going to see in the next century or two, that aren't yet considered an issue.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        We're quite likely to start running out of fossil fuels in the next few decades. It is unlikely that the loss will accelerate.
      - engineer_22 5y ago
        To play devil's advocate: Nothing suggests the trend will accelerate. It is just as likely to decelerate.
  - ccn0p 5y ago
    am i missing something? this is right in the FAQ: ``` Should we be concerned that the atmospheric oxygen supply is declining? This point was addressed in an article by Broecker (Science, Vol. 168, 1537-1538, 1970). Although written many years ago, the basic point made by the article remains valid. The maximum potential loss of O2 from fuel burning, when fossil fuel reserves (mostly coal) are exhausted is only a few percent of the atmospheric burden. Since even this loss will take many centuries to materialize, it's hard to see this as high on the list of possible environmental concerns. ```
  - Proven 5y ago
    It's not worrying at all because the rate is low, linear and predictable. Can you elaborate on why would the rate increase? Or are you saying that simply was the most alarming thing you could come up with in the context of this discussion, and the rate is just as likely to remain the same or decrease?

"The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year."

leptoniscool 5y ago

That's a 0.0019% decrease, not very significant is it?

cgugino 5y ago
Not today, but the trend is worrying, especially if the rate increases. What will this look like in 50 years? 1,000?
- bioinformatics 5y ago
  50 * 0.0019% = 0.00095 1000 * 0.0019% = 1.9%
  - booi 5y ago
    Previous commenter said if the loss accelerates. Larger and larger changes each year would be more than worrisome.
    - ljf 5y ago
      I agree, we should consider that further oxygen loss could come from long burning wild fires etc, should the environment lend itself to a higher propensity to them. This could both burn oxygen and remove plants that would therefore not create and replace oxygen (in the short terms at least). I am sure there are some weird feedback loops we are going to see in the next century or two, that aren't yet considered an issue.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      We're quite likely to start running out of fossil fuels in the next few decades. It is unlikely that the loss will accelerate.
    - engineer_22 5y ago
      To play devil's advocate: Nothing suggests the trend will accelerate. It is just as likely to decelerate.
- ccn0p 5y ago
  am i missing something? this is right in the FAQ: ``` Should we be concerned that the atmospheric oxygen supply is declining? This point was addressed in an article by Broecker (Science, Vol. 168, 1537-1538, 1970). Although written many years ago, the basic point made by the article remains valid. The maximum potential loss of O2 from fuel burning, when fossil fuel reserves (mostly coal) are exhausted is only a few percent of the atmospheric burden. Since even this loss will take many centuries to materialize, it's hard to see this as high on the list of possible environmental concerns. ```
- Proven 5y ago
  It's not worrying at all because the rate is low, linear and predictable. Can you elaborate on why would the rate increase? Or are you saying that simply was the most alarming thing you could come up with in the context of this discussion, and the rate is just as likely to remain the same or decrease?