barth

senior, 70+

[barth @barth52]

Atm. oxygen isn’t the problem.
The problem is rising CO2 levels and its effects.
(And pollution, habitat loss & - fragmentation, looting natural resources etc.)
But I think it is also important to give good information about oxygen
I see a lot of misunderstanding about atm Oxygen

[barth @barth52]

@bertus1947 atm. CO2 stijgt nu circa 2,5 ppm/jaar, en zuurstof daalt met circa 5 ppm/jaar.

[barth @barth52]

@JournalistCisca We krijgen geen extra zuurstof door onze CO2 uitstoot. De verbranding van Olie en gas consumeert veel meer zuurstof UIT de lucht dan door extra fotosynthese wordt terug gegeven. Als de CO2 levels 10 ppm stijgen daalt de zuurstof circa 20 ppm.

[barth @barth52]

@Miekeuitbrabant @MForgeng Het feit dat de CO2 levels consequent aan het stijgen zijn geeft aan dat bomen en planten veel van onze CO2 uitstoot niet kunnen opnemen. (Ook niet genoeg als je meer bomen erbij plant). Om de snelheid van de CO2 stijging te temperen zou onze uitstoot gereduceerd moeten worden.

[barth @barth52]

@Geertjunior @Sandervandam2 Haha, Over Alarmisme gesproken.
(de enorme overvloed van zuurstof in de atmosfeer raak je echt niet zo gemakkelijk kwijt, en voorlopig is de enorme zuurstof consumptie van de verbranding van fossiele brandstoffen nog steeds de hoofdoorzaak van verlies van O2 in de atmosfeer.)

[barth @barth52]

@PreppenWolf @AlchemistJedi @SunWeatherMan The decrease of O2 levels is measured at multiple stations spread over the world. From the high North to the Southpole. Measurements by the Scripps O2 program.

[barth @barth52]

@AlchemistJedi @PreppenWolf @SunWeatherMan We don't get higher oxygen levels when we increase CO2 levels by burning fuels. Oxygen levels are slightly decreasing when CO2 levels go up. Burning Fuels consumes much more oxygen out of the air than what can be returned due to increased photosynthesis.

[barth @barth52]

@GerardAMorrow Burning fossil fuels consumes Oxygen out of the air.
Fuel + O2 (out of air) -> CO2 + H2O
And photosynthesis returns only a part of that O2 because plants absorb only about a quarter of our emissions. A lot of consumed Oxygen remains bound and isn't returned. CO2 up=O2 down

[barth @barth52]

@presumed_animal @JimBowersclimb @James91520489 @Warixi1 Net zero won't stop the natural carbon cycle, the emissions from respiration and microbal decomposition wich balances photosynthesis will go on as always. CO2 levels won't go down when we reduce fossil fuel emissions. It is about tempering and stopping the increase of CO2 levels.

[barth @barth52]

@climatebabes @PidasolStu @ChrisMartzWX The climatic effects of the rise of CO2 are a problem, and Ocean deoxygenation is one of those effects and a threat for sea life. But there is no threat for the abundance of Atmospheric Oxygen. Humans will have always enough Oxygen to breathe.

[barth @barth52]

@BytesJaco28204 @WillBlair1982 @Electroversenet Where I live, (near Utrecht, NL) the warming trend of the average annual temperature is 0.23 degree Celsius per decade.

[barth @barth52]

@BytesJaco28204 @WillBlair1982 @Electroversenet Plants and trees absorb about a quarter of our emissions. That means that most of the consumed O2 remains bound and will not be returned by photosynthesis. It remains bound within higher CO2 levels, within emitted H2O, and within carbonate ions in the sea. Loss of free O2.

[barth @barth52]

@BytesJaco28204 @WillBlair1982 @Electroversenet Producing CO2 with the combustion of fuels is not essential for Oxygen production. It consumes Oxygen out of the air.

[barth @barth52]

@raygunburn @cearonoflynn @John_On_Climate @CollinsMikeyc @AdrianRamsay Are we already addicted to fossil fuel burning? Fossil fuel junks? Not alone to maintain our life style, but also to maintain ourselves with the production of our food with CO2 generators? Addicted to the immediate gains, but willingly blind for the known long term consequences?

[barth @barth52]

@raygunburn @cearonoflynn @John_On_Climate @CollinsMikeyc @AdrianRamsay I think that People can cheat, people can plunder natural resources, but people cannot beat nature or handle inertia beyond human timescales. It is easy to feel rich and free when we aren't fully confronted with the consequences of our actions yet.

[barth @barth52]

@raygunburn @cearonoflynn @John_On_Climate @CollinsMikeyc @AdrianRamsay As long as we are burning Coal, Oil and Natural Gas, and CO2 levels are rising, we keep losing atm. Oxygen due the O2 consumption of burning those fuels.
O2 is slightly decreasing, even when there is some regreening when plants+trees take up about a quarter of our CO2 emissions

[barth @barth52]

@LibbyTard17 The drought is serious, but humans will have always enough oxygen to breathe. There is still an abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere.

[barth @barth52]

@aktrader2 @bendreyfuss @AlbertoAgo_73 There is an huge amount of O2 in the atmosphere, and that makes all the fluxes of Oxygen cycle very small percentages of the total amount, and it makes the O2 percentage very stable. You will not notice the minuscule O2 fluctuations caused by the seasons.

[barth @barth52]

@HerwieC Nee. Het verhogen van de CO2 gebeurt door de uitstoot van verbranding van fossiele brandstoffen, wat meer zuurstof uit de lucht consumeert dan dat we terugkrijgen door extra fotosynthese. Daarom daalt zuurstof als CO2 stijgt. Een miniem percentage maar toch!

[barth @barth52]

@DefensieMin Ik hoorde hoe de Russische TV propagandist Solovyov in een hersenspinsel voorstelde om als reactie op aanvallen in Rusland, de terminals van de haven van Rotterdam te vernietigen, als een voorbeeld om NAVO landen te treffen.

[barth @barth52]

@bade1hp @Lafliyorum 63 (2*31=1)