Literature request: dioxygen in Earth's atmosphere
|
|
Thread rating:  |
sanlosinst@yahoo.co.uk - 24 Oct 2007 12:15 GMT Can anyone recommend me a good text on the generation and removal of dioxygen in Earth's atmosphere? I'm looking for a book rather than a journal article. My purpose is to get an idea of how environmental destruction could affect Earth's atmosphere in the future.
My main questions are: Which species produce the most dioxgen, and whereabouts on Earth's surface do they live? What environmental conditions are necessary for bulk dioxygen- producing species to thrive? Which dioxygen-producing species would continue to survive in adverse environmental conditions which could foreseeably come about in the next century?
I would prefer books that give solid numbers about amounts of dioxygen produced, rather than vague statements like 'trees are important'. If the books explain the basis for calculating these numbers that would be even better.
At the same time, I would welcome recommendations of decent scientific books giving projections of the likely future impact of human activity on the environment in general, as long as these are based in solid science.
To give you an idea of my level of technical understanding, I have degrees in Biochemistry and Biophysics, and I used to develop methods in analytical chemistry.
Thanks in advance, Samuel
Bob - 26 Oct 2007 04:31 GMT >Can anyone recommend me a good text on the generation and removal of >dioxygen in Earth's atmosphere? I'm looking for a book rather than a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >degrees in Biochemistry and Biophysics, and I used to develop methods >in analytical chemistry. Interesting question. Some quick thoughts...
I think you would be better off with journal articles; this is likely to be quite controversial, with differing and changing views. Journal articles are more likely to give you the breadth of views, and to keep you current.
To a first approximation, one might expect O2-evolution to follow CO2 consumption by plants. There is much debate about the latter. That may be a hint of the complexity of your question. At least there are numbers.
Remember, it is not simply O2-evolution that is of concern, but net O2 change, the result of the differential change of evolution and consumption.
I'd suggest searching on something like oxygen biogeochemical cycle to start.
bob
hanson - 26 Oct 2007 05:01 GMT ahahaha... AHAHAHA... listen to these 2 class 3 enviros whine. If they are not typical classical 3 green turds then this must be a prank to which gentle green "bbx107" went for.... ahahahaha... Listen: "removal of dioxygen in Earth's atmosphere"... ahahaha.. The solution to "sanlosinst"'s O2-problem who indeed appears to be losing it, is simple: See to it that all enviros stop breathing. With that, this and all other enviro paranoias will disappear.... Thanks for the laughs you poor and self-dooming bastards. Now read this and see which part of the enviro game you have fallen victim to: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba ahahahaha... ahahahahanson
>>Can anyone recommend me a good text on the generation >> and removal of dioxygen in Earth's atmosphere? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > bob sanlosinst@yahoo.co.uk - 26 Oct 2007 10:17 GMT > ahahaha... AHAHAHA... listen to these 2 class 3 enviros whine. > If they are not typical classical 3 green turds then this must be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > With that, this and all other enviro paranoias will disappear.... > Thanks for the laughs you poor and self-dooming bastards. Have you read what I wrote in my original post? I'm trying to inform myself about whether there is a real threat apparent from the evidence, instead of just assuming that claims by political green parties must be true.
You accuse people of falling for green scams based on lies. Then you also condemn me for trying to find out what is really true. What should I do, rather than trying to get informed about the real facts?
Samuel
David Bostwick - 26 Oct 2007 14:41 GMT >> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... listen to these 2 class 3 enviros whine. >> If they are not typical classical 3 green turds then this must be [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Samuel I think you should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide. Breathing even a small amount of it may kill you. It's all over our food, even on "organic" produce, and washing the produce still leaves a measurable residue.
hanson - 26 Oct 2007 15:39 GMT > In article <1193390277.775890.25740@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, sanlosinst@yahoo.co.uk (Samuel) wrote:
>>> ahahaha... AHAHAHA... listen to these 2 class 3 enviros whine. >>> If they are not typical classical 3 green turds then this must be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> With that, this and all other enviro paranoias will disappear.... >>> Thanks for the laughs you poor and self-dooming bastards. [Samuel]
>>Have you read what I wrote in my original post? I'm trying to inform >>myself about whether there is a real threat apparent from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> real facts? >>Samuel [Dave]
> I think you should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide. > Breathing even a small amount of it may kill you. It's all over our > food, even on "organic" produce, and washing the produce > still leaves a measurable residue. [hanson] ahahahaha... indeed, indeed... Shmuel ought to check the MSDS for the toxicity and POTENTIAL (a classic green-must expression) dangers and hazards of dihydrogen monoxide... ahahaha... Also, notice how Samuel continued to whine in typical class 3 enviro style?.... Notice how he snipped "Now read this and see which part of the enviro game you have fallen victim to": http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba Samuel, the poor sod, shows all the ear marks of a self-tormented class 3 enviro (defined in the above link). It is heart braking to see what the class 1 & class 2 enviros did and do to otherwise normal and intelligent people like Samuel.
On the larger scale, David, down in your knack of the woods the sins of the green sh.t that these enviro bastards produced have come home to roost. Because of the natural current cyclical draught in Georgia etc, people are made to suffer severely NOT because of their scarce water resources, but because water is drained away and wasted on some f.cking endangered mussels down stream. I am glad to hear that Georgians are building new reservoirs which will not be subject to such nazi green fanatical extremism. Ergo, ********* Enjoy chemistry... but f.ck enviros! ********* http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/70ed6372eccc32ba ahahaha... ahahahahanson
HangEveryRepubliKKKan - 28 Oct 2007 03:55 GMT UN issues 'final wake-up call' on population and environment ------------------------------------------------------------ By James Kanter - International herald Tribune - Thursday, October 25, 2007
PARIS: The human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return, according to a major report issued Thursday by the United Nations.
Climate change, the rate of extinction of species and the challenge of feeding a growing population are among the threats putting humanity at risk, the UN Environment Program said in its fourth Global Environmental Outlook since 1997.
"The human population is now so large that the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available at current consumption patterns," Achim Steiner, the executive director of the program, said in a telephone interview. Efficient use of resources and reducing waste now are "among the greatest challenges at the beginning of 21st century," he said.
The program described its report, which is prepared by 388 experts and scientists, as the broadest and deepest of those that the UN issues on the environment and called it "the final wake-up call to the international community."
Over the past two decades the world population has increased by almost 34 percent to 6.7 billion from 5 billion; similarly, the financial wealth of the planet has soared by about a third. But the land available to each person on earth had shrunk by 2005 to 2.02 hectares, or 5 acres, from 7.91 hectares in 1900 and was projected to drop to 1.63 hectares for each person by 2050, the report said.
The result of that population growth combined with unsustainable consumption has resulted in an increasingly stressed planet where natural disasters and environmental degradation endanger millions of humans, as well as plant and animal species, the report said.
Steiner said that demand for resources was close to 22 hectares per person, a figure that would have to be cut to between 15 and 16 hectares per person to stay within existing, sustainable limits.
Persistent problems identified by the report include a rapid rise of so-called dead zones, where marine life no longer can be supported because of depletion of oxygen caused by pollutants like fertilizers. Also included is the resurgence of diseases linked with environmental degradation.
The report is being published two decades after a commission headed by the former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland warned that the survival of humanity was at stake from unsustainable development.
Steiner said many of the problems identified by the Brundtland Commission were even more acute because not enough had been done to stop environmental degradation as flows of goods, services, people, technologies and workers had expanded, even to isolated populations.
He did, however, identify some reasons for hope that pointed toward better environmental stewardship.
He said West European governments had taken effective measures to reduce air pollutants, and he praised efforts in parts of Brazil to roll back deforestation in the Amazon. He said an international treaty to tackle the hole in the earth's ozone layer had led to the phasing-out of release of 95 percent of ozone-damaging chemicals.
Steiner said more intelligent management of scarce resources including fishing grounds, land and water was needed to sustain a still larger global population, which he said was expected to stabilize at between 8 billion and 10 billion people.
"Life would be easier if we didn't have the kind of population growth rates that we have at the moment," Steiner said. "But to force people to stop having children would be a simplistic answer. The more realistic, ethical and practical issue is to accelerate human well-being and make more rational use of the resources we have on this planet."
Steiner said environmental tipping points, at which degradation can lead to abrupt, accelerating or potentially irreversible changes, would increasingly occur in locations like particular rivers or forests, where populations would lack the ability to repair damage because the gravity of a problem would be far beyond their physical or economic means.
Looking ahead, Steiner said parts of Africa could reach environmental tipping points if changing rainfall patterns stemming from climate change turned semi-arid zones into arid zones, and made agriculture that sustained millions of people much harder.
Steiner said other tipping points triggered by climate change could occur in areas like India and China if Himalayan glaciers shrank so much that they no longer supplied adequate amounts of water to populations in those countries.
He also warned of a global collapse of all species being fished by 2050, if fishing around the world continued at its present pace.
The report said 250 percent more fish are being caught than the oceans can produce in a sustainable manner, and that the number of fish stocks classed as collapsed had roughly doubled to 30 percent globally over the past 20 years.
The report said that current changes in biodiversity were the fastest in human history, with species becoming extinct a hundred times as fast as the rate in the fossil record. It said 12 percent of birds were threatened with extinction; for mammals the figure was 23 percent and for amphibians it was more than 30 percent.
"Scientists now refer to a sixth major extinction crisis that's under way," Steiner said.
The first mass extinction, about 440 million years ago, and the four succeeding extinctions were the result of physical shocks to the planet like volcanic eruptions and plate tectonic shifts.
The report said that annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels have risen by about one-third since 1987 and that the threat from climate change now was so urgent that only very large cuts in greenhouse gases of 60 to 80 percent could stop irreversible change.
The effects of global warming, like the melting ice in the Arctic are "accelerating at a pace that goes beyond the scenarios and models we've been using," Steiner said.
Climate change, however, was an issue that gained huge momentum over the past year, with governments, industries and citizens increasingly seeking solutions to the problem, Steiner said. The recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to former Vice President Al Gore was a sign of widespread scientific consensus that climate change is under way, he said.
Steiner called for an accelerated effort on a far wider range of environmental issues to build the same sense of urgency as shown on climate change over the past year to address the worsening situations of biodiversity, land degradation, fisheries and freshwater.
Many biologists and climate scientists have concluded that human activities have become a dominant influence on the planet's climate and ecosystems. But there is still a range of views on whether this could result in a catastrophic unraveling of natural resources as the human population heads toward nine billion by midcentury, or more of a steady diminution in diversity.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan - 27 Oct 2007 02:33 GMT > I think you should worry more about dihydrogen monoxide. Breathing even a > small amount of it may kill you. It's all over our food, even on > "organic" > produce, and washing the produce still leaves a measurable residue. Yup, water can be dangerous. That's why Rush Limbaugh advises people to use buckets with holes in them. To assure that they can not get their heads stuck inside while mopping the floor.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan - 28 Oct 2007 03:54 GMT UN issues 'final wake-up call' on population and environment ------------------------------------------------------------ By James Kanter - International herald Tribune - Thursday, October 25, 2007
PARIS: The human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return, according to a major report issued Thursday by the United Nations.
Climate change, the rate of extinction of species and the challenge of feeding a growing population are among the threats putting humanity at risk, the UN Environment Program said in its fourth Global Environmental Outlook since 1997.
"The human population is now so large that the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available at current consumption patterns," Achim Steiner, the executive director of the program, said in a telephone interview. Efficient use of resources and reducing waste now are "among the greatest challenges at the beginning of 21st century," he said.
The program described its report, which is prepared by 388 experts and scientists, as the broadest and deepest of those that the UN issues on the environment and called it "the final wake-up call to the international community."
Over the past two decades the world population has increased by almost 34 percent to 6.7 billion from 5 billion; similarly, the financial wealth of the planet has soared by about a third. But the land available to each person on earth had shrunk by 2005 to 2.02 hectares, or 5 acres, from 7.91 hectares in 1900 and was projected to drop to 1.63 hectares for each person by 2050, the report said.
The result of that population growth combined with unsustainable consumption has resulted in an increasingly stressed planet where natural disasters and environmental degradation endanger millions of humans, as well as plant and animal species, the report said.
Steiner said that demand for resources was close to 22 hectares per person, a figure that would have to be cut to between 15 and 16 hectares per person to stay within existing, sustainable limits.
Persistent problems identified by the report include a rapid rise of so-called dead zones, where marine life no longer can be supported because of depletion of oxygen caused by pollutants like fertilizers. Also included is the resurgence of diseases linked with environmental degradation.
The report is being published two decades after a commission headed by the former Norwegian prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland warned that the survival of humanity was at stake from unsustainable development.
Steiner said many of the problems identified by the Brundtland Commission were even more acute because not enough had been done to stop environmental degradation as flows of goods, services, people, technologies and workers had expanded, even to isolated populations.
He did, however, identify some reasons for hope that pointed toward better environmental stewardship.
He said West European governments had taken effective measures to reduce air pollutants, and he praised efforts in parts of Brazil to roll back deforestation in the Amazon. He said an international treaty to tackle the hole in the earth's ozone layer had led to the phasing-out of release of 95 percent of ozone-damaging chemicals.
Steiner said more intelligent management of scarce resources including fishing grounds, land and water was needed to sustain a still larger global population, which he said was expected to stabilize at between 8 billion and 10 billion people.
"Life would be easier if we didn't have the kind of population growth rates that we have at the moment," Steiner said. "But to force people to stop having children would be a simplistic answer. The more realistic, ethical and practical issue is to accelerate human well-being and make more rational use of the resources we have on this planet."
Steiner said environmental tipping points, at which degradation can lead to abrupt, accelerating or potentially irreversible changes, would increasingly occur in locations like particular rivers or forests, where populations would lack the ability to repair damage because the gravity of a problem would be far beyond their physical or economic means.
Looking ahead, Steiner said parts of Africa could reach environmental tipping points if changing rainfall patterns stemming from climate change turned semi-arid zones into arid zones, and made agriculture that sustained millions of people much harder.
Steiner said other tipping points triggered by climate change could occur in areas like India and China if Himalayan glaciers shrank so much that they no longer supplied adequate amounts of water to populations in those countries.
He also warned of a global collapse of all species being fished by 2050, if fishing around the world continued at its present pace.
The report said 250 percent more fish are being caught than the oceans can produce in a sustainable manner, and that the number of fish stocks classed as collapsed had roughly doubled to 30 percent globally over the past 20 years.
The report said that current changes in biodiversity were the fastest in human history, with species becoming extinct a hundred times as fast as the rate in the fossil record. It said 12 percent of birds were threatened with extinction; for mammals the figure was 23 percent and for amphibians it was more than 30 percent.
"Scientists now refer to a sixth major extinction crisis that's under way," Steiner said.
The first mass extinction, about 440 million years ago, and the four succeeding extinctions were the result of physical shocks to the planet like volcanic eruptions and plate tectonic shifts.
The report said that annual emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels have risen by about one-third since 1987 and that the threat from climate change now was so urgent that only very large cuts in greenhouse gases of 60 to 80 percent could stop irreversible change.
The effects of global warming, like the melting ice in the Arctic are "accelerating at a pace that goes beyond the scenarios and models we've been using," Steiner said.
Climate change, however, was an issue that gained huge momentum over the past year, with governments, industries and citizens increasingly seeking solutions to the problem, Steiner said. The recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to former Vice President Al Gore was a sign of widespread scientific consensus that climate change is under way, he said.
Steiner called for an accelerated effort on a far wider range of environmental issues to build the same sense of urgency as shown on climate change over the past year to address the worsening situations of biodiversity, land degradation, fisheries and freshwater.
Many biologists and climate scientists have concluded that human activities have become a dominant influence on the planet's climate and ecosystems. But there is still a range of views on whether this could result in a catastrophic unraveling of natural resources as the human population heads toward nine billion by midcentury, or more of a steady diminution in diversity.
sanlosinst@yahoo.co.uk - 26 Oct 2007 10:12 GMT > I think you would be better off with journal articles; this is likely > to be quite controversial, with differing and changing views. Journal > articles are more likely to give you the breadth of views, and to keep > you current. Unfortunately I no longer work in any scientific institution, so getting journal articles is more difficult. Does anyone know where I can find a free website that lets me search for journal articles?
> To a first approximation, one might expect O2-evolution to follow CO2 > consumption by plants. There is much debate about the latter. That may > be a hint of the complexity of your question. At least there are > numbers. I get the impression that algae also make a big contribution, particularly marine algae which flourish in open ocean at lower temperatures. There's also the question of which plants are most importnat and where on the earth they live. Some people claim that the rain forests are the most important O2-producing areas while others dispute this.
> I'd suggest searching on something like > oxygen biogeochemical cycle > to start. I tried that for a while but I could only find books for schollchildren.
Samuel
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 26 Oct 2007 17:57 GMT Dear sanlosinst:
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 04:15:50 -0700, sanlosi...@yahoo.co.uk >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Does anyone know where I can find a free website > that lets me search for journal articles? Google searches the articles, so at least you can identify specifics of the publication, even if you cannot view the article without paying. A trip to a college (or really good public) library will give you access to the article text.
>> To a first approximation, one might expect >> O2-evolution to follow CO2 consumption by plants. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contribution, particularly marine algae which > flourish in open ocean at lower temperatures. Consider that the level of oxygen far from the ocean and near the ocean (even out in the middle of the ocean) is pretty constant, so marine algae, if it is making significant amounts of O2, is doing it for the aquatic life.
> There's also the question of which plants are most > importnat and where on the earth they live. Some > people claim that the rain forests are the most > important O2-producing areas while others dispute > this. Rainforests appear to be O2 neutral, much like the ocean. However, when they are not present, or are decaying away, CO2 is not being scrubbed... but released.
>> I'd suggest searching on something like >> oxygen biogeochemical cycle >> to start. > > I tried that for a while but I could only find books for > schollchildren. Add one or more more technical terms to your search, to thin out the selection. Adding "chloroplast" reduces the hits down from 400,000+ to ~30,000.
David A. Smith
sanlosinst@yahoo.co.uk - 27 Oct 2007 12:36 GMT On Oct 26, 5:57 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> Rainforests appear to be O2 neutral, much like the ocean. > However, when they are not present, or are decaying away, CO2 is > not being scrubbed... but released. Do you have a reference for this?
Please let me underline: I am looking for literature. I've heard all sorts of claims, and now I'd like to study the evidence for myself.
Samuel
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) - 27 Oct 2007 17:29 GMT > On Oct 26, 5:57 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" > <dl...@cox.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've heard all sorts of claims, and now I'd like to study > the evidence for myself. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-08/965676157.Bt.r.html ... I'd ask this question on madsci. Or at least review to see if your question has not already been asked and answered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_rainforest ... references section.
.edu sites waver between no net production and 40% net production of atmospheric oxygen.
You might find some resources here: http://www.ncsu.edu/bioresources/
www.springerlink.com ... seems to have several papers related to rainforests. Not that you can read them there without paying, but you can identify the journals (and specific issues) that have the information you seek.
I strongly urge you to find a good library, and quit holding your hand out like a poor child. Usenet is a pretty poor place to get nothing but unvarnished truth.
Note also that production of cement (as used in making concrete) is a very big net producer of CO2, and production (or at least recycling) of aluminum (and probably other metals) is probably close to oxygen neutral.
David A. Smith
Bill Penrose - 27 Oct 2007 03:52 GMT On Oct 26, 1:12 am, sanlosi...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Unfortunately I no longer work in any scientific institution, so > getting journal articles is more difficult. Does anyone know where I > can find a free website that lets me search for journal articles? There are no free article websites, except the rapidly rising open- access journals. Copyright limits prevent libraries from opening their files indiscriminately.
There are several ways you can get free or nearly free access to journals:
1. Visit a research university in person. Most have open stacks or terminals where you can search their electronic records. For example, the University of Arizona, near me, will let you walk in off the street and use its terminals. They charge a dime a page for printing. For an annual payment of $100, they will grant online access to journals and allow borrowing of books and reports. You can also sign up for a one-credit course and get library access, although it will cost more.
2. Use the librarian in your local public library. Librarians are trained in literature searching, but typically don't get to use these skills if they work in local and branch libraries. Many have an underused budget for online searching and interlibrary loans.
3. If you have a former connection with a university, as employee or student, you can often get online access just by asking. When I retired from my institution, I was able to keep my email account and my library access.
4. For recent papers, write directly to the authors and ask for reprints. Most will oblige.
Dangerous Bill
Bob - 27 Oct 2007 18:30 GMT >> I think you would be better off with journal articles; this is likely >> to be quite controversial, with differing and changing views. Journal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >getting journal articles is more difficult. Does anyone know where I >can find a free website that lets me search for journal articles? PubMed
Scirus
Google Scholar
Try them. PubMed and Scirus give you abstracts online. Scirus can also give you some good web sites.
Can you get to a univ library? Bill Penrose gave an example of how access can work. Details vary, so you need to check. At Univ Calif, access is even better than what he describes, in some ways. Asking is a big step.
As to journals free online, it varies. Journals are experimenting with policies (trying to balance providing access and making money, I suppose). Some journals open their backfile for free access 12 months after publication. Some allow access to new articles. It varies. Just go look.
As some examples: PNAS allows access to articles more than a few months old, as does Science -- but the Science file goes back only to 1997. Nucleic Acid Research is now completely open access. In one case recently, I wanted an article -- and found it... just happened to be in the one issue the journal had posted as a free sample. (Obscure journal, to which we did not subscribe.) Just go look.
If you have been away from library research for a while, you will be surprised at how good online searching and online access has become.
>> To a first approximation, one might expect O2-evolution to follow CO2 >> consumption by plants. There is much debate about the latter. That may [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >particularly marine algae which flourish in open ocean at lower >temperatures. Yes, yes. Ordinary photosynthesis -- I meant algae to be included with plants in this context.
The point is that O2 and CO2 are intricately connected biologically. Atmospheric levels of O2 are orders of magnitude higher than for CO2, so it is CO2 that is much more sensitive to the biological effects.
>There's also the question of which plants are most >importnat and where on the earth they live. Some people claim that the >rain forests are the most important O2-producing areas while others >dispute this. Right; that illustrates why books are risky on this topic.
>> I'd suggest searching on something like >> oxygen biogeochemical cycle >> to start. > >I tried that for a while but I could only find books for >schollchildren. I meant... search an article database with those terms. Even Google Scholar. (Sometimes Google will usefully give scientific stuff; hard to predict.)
But it is good to hear that biogeochemistry books are now being aimed at school children. :-)
bob
|
|
|