Submitted by abrandis t3_1255xmu in explainlikeimfive
I understand there's a large amount of photosynthesis that creates oxygen especially algae, but humans have produced many machines that use much more than other biological species, shouldn't we be seeing a reduction in the atmosphere?
[deleted]
the amount of oxygen we have used is minuscule compared to the amount in the atmosphere.
The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion tons and 20% of that is oxygen.
You need to remember that it is only if we use it with carbon that is not part of the carbon cycle on earth that it is a net increase. So if we burn a tree for fuel and then a new tree grows up and replaces it the same amount of oxygen is released from it photosynthesis.
So it it primary fossil fuels from the ground that use up oxygen and produce CO2. The amount of CO2 is today 412 PPM an increase by 47% from the preindustrial age. let's say 200PPM.
1 PPM =0.0001% so an increase be 0.02%. Compare that to the atmospheric oxygen level of 20.95%. The result is we have used around 1/1000 of the oxygen in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution
Oxygen levels are decreasing slightly, but there is a lot more oxygen (20.95%) than CO2 (0.02%). If CO2 doubled to 0.04%, without any oxygen being added back, the level would decrease to 20.93%, which is barely noticeable.
Plants (especially algae) convert lots of CO2 back into oxygen, this slows down the rate at which CO2 levels are creeping upwards to a crawl. A change in the natural ecosystem which disturbs photosynthesis, such as a mass die-off of algae, would cause a much larger shift in O2 and CO2 levels.
[removed]
[deleted]
Matter can be created and destroyed, energy cannot be created or destroyed in a conserved system.
If you present matter with a precise quantity of its antimatter counterpart they'll both annihilate; the total energy of the system will be conserved, but the matter will be destroyed.
[deleted]
Conservation of mass, not matter.
There is a difference between mass and matter, the former can be created and destroyed, the latter cannot since it's a property of stress-energy.
I’ve done more research, and I’m admitting now that you are correct. I apologize. HOWEVER, it is negligible with regards to OP’s post and does not occur naturally, only by human technologies and experimentation.
You don't have to apologize, it's a complicated subject, I'm just glad that we could get to the same page.
Agreed. Good debate
[deleted]
[deleted]
You're incorrect, and should take a moment to learn about this subject, it's a fascinating one.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=108262
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2012/01/collisions-happen
Technically some of it evaporates into space every day but it’s a relatively small amount.
True, but also space dust enters in and contains oxygen. These are both water droplets in the ocean with regards to the size of the earth tho
Master absolutely can be destroyed - that's what nuclear fission is. A very small amount of "stuff" is converted to energy (heat).
Way2Foxy t1_je2mbj2 wrote
If we suppose the amount of oxygen "lost" is equal to the CO2 added, which is oversimplified but close enough to get the point across, then the atmosphere has increased by about .02% CO2 over the last few centuries.
The atmosphere is about 21% oxygen, so you can see how that's basically a rounding error with regards to oxygen level.