Atmospheric oxygen and CO2
Ian Macmillan
over the past decade. No equivalent figures seem to be available for
atmospheric oxygen which, at the order of accuracy given for CO2, should
enable depletion due to combustion to be separated from other causes, and
thus imply the proportion of the increased CO2 due to combustion.
Has this been done, or are there technical obstacles?
MAUNA LOA CO2 DATA
1993: 357.04 ppm
1994: 358.88 ppm
1995: 360.88 ppm
1996: 362.64 ppm
1997: 363.76 ppm
1998: 366.63 ppm
1999: 368.31 ppm
2000: 369.48 ppm
2001: 371.02 ppm
2002: 373.10 ppm
2003: 375.64 ppm
The mean for the 12 months of each year.
All the best
Ian Macmillan
Lloyd
We already know almost all of the increase is due to combustion
because the added CO2 has a different isotopic ratio.
Tooned In
news:482d26fd$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Is conventional combustion source CO2 different from volcanic source CO2?
Has there not been steadily increased volcanic activity there?
Ian Macmillan
"Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:41280d77-6047-4cb0...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
Well, there is some dispute about that:
But, my question was, in part, can atmospheric oxygen be measured to the
same order of accuracy (1:10^8) ascribed to the CO2 figures quoted?
And also, can a reduction of atmospheric oxygen due to increased
(anthropogenic) combustion be observed?
Lloyd
> "Lloyd" <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote in message
>
You might have some credibility if you'd cite a scientific source
rather than a blog. Oh, you can't cite one, because there is no
dispute in science about it.
> But, my question was, in part, can atmospheric oxygen be measured to the
> same order of accuracy (1:10^8) ascribed to the CO2 figures quoted?
>
> And also, can a reduction of atmospheric oxygen due to increased
> (anthropogenic) combustion be observed?
>
Maybe, but who cares? There's a reason nobody's wasting time
measuring the O2 ppm.
Lloyd
> "Ian Macmillan" <iand...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
Volcanoes put out a tiny fraction of CO2 combustion does.
Here's a good source for answers:
Martin Brown
> "Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
> news:41280d77-6047-4cb0...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 16, 2:11 am, "Ian Macmillan" <iand...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>>> The following table shows increases in atmospheric CO2 as recorded in
> Hawaii
>>> over the past decade. No equivalent figures seem to be available for
>>> atmospheric oxygen which, at the order of accuracy given for CO2, should
>>> enable depletion due to combustion to be separated from other causes,
> and
>>> thus imply the proportion of the increased CO2 due to combustion.
>>>
>>> Has this been done, or are there technical obstacles?
There are severe technical obstacles of measuring a small signal as the
difference of two huge ones. O2 is present in the atmosphere at around
20% so you need at least 6 sig fig measurements to detect ppm changes.
But is is being done and amongst others by the son of Charles Keeling,
the researcher who started the Mauna Loa CO2 obeservations over 50 years
ago (and who managed to resist attempts by the Bush adminstration to
shut it down by funding starvation).
>>>
>>> MAUNA LOA CO2 DATA
>>>
>>> 1993: 357.04 ppm
>>> 1994: 358.88 ppm
>>> 1995: 360.88 ppm
>>> 1996: 362.64 ppm
>>> 1997: 363.76 ppm
>>> 1998: 366.63 ppm
>>> 1999: 368.31 ppm
>>> 2000: 369.48 ppm
>>> 2001: 371.02 ppm
>>> 2002: 373.10 ppm
>>> 2003: 375.64 ppm
>>>
>>> The mean for the 12 months of each year.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>> Ian Macmillan
>> We already know almost all of the increase is due to combustion
>> because the added CO2 has a different isotopic ratio.
>
> Well, there is some dispute about that:
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
Looks to me like yet another dittohead fake science site.
No one disputes the deltaC13 data, not even people in the oil industry
unless they are half baked YEC nutters. The US is sadly full of them :(
deltaC13 SIRA is also used to characterise oil from different sources.
>
> But, my question was, in part, can atmospheric oxygen be measured to the
> same order of accuracy (1:10^8) ascribed to the CO2 figures quoted?
The accuracy of the CO2 figures quoted is at most 5 sig fig at a
modestly low concentration (i'd probably only trust 4 digits). The
sensitivity is around 1:10^8. Work is in hand to measure atmospheric
oxygen by researchers including Ralph Keeling. But it is much harder
because you are looking for a tiny change of order 2ppm per year in a
huge signal of ~20% or 200,000ppm which requires 6 sig fig accuracy in
one year or a waiting decade with a 5 sig fig measurement.
> And also, can a reduction of atmospheric oxygen due to increased
> (anthropogenic) combustion be observed?
Yes. The although it is a lot harder to do. The full text scientific
papers are online but require a subscription of $ to see.
A brief interview transcript at a popular science level is online at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1873631.htm
The work is interesting because all combustion must take O2 out of the
atmosphere so it gives a cross check on the carbon cycle. Some of the
CO2 that is emitted is absorbed into the oceans.
Regards,
Martin Brown
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **