What amount of forrest-fire in square km or metric tons, would be necesary to bring oxygen levels below 19.5%...
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I read that oxygen makes up 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. I'm guessing it would take a lot of burning to decrease that level, but I am not sure how to calculate that.
The problem is: Roughly 400 hundred years in the future, humans are thinking they need to burn some forests made predominantly of a plant species that produces a gas toxic to humans and other life-forms, that spread on Earth and suffocated a lot of other useful (for us) plant species. They were worried that the large-scale fires would lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate, but I can tell from the existing answer, that’s not going to be a problem, so they can go ahead with the plan.
I got the 19.5% threshold from this article: https://sciencing.com/minimum-oxygen-concentration-human-breathing-15546.html
But on a closer reading, I noticed it said the OPTIMAL range is between 19.5% and 23.5%, and the CRITICAL threshold for survival is 6%, so my mistake. Again, this makes the worries of the people in my story unfounded.
My question has been answered, thank you!
life fire oxygen cataclysms
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
closed as unclear what you're asking by Mołot, Ash, Renan, James♦ Nov 14 at 16:58
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I read that oxygen makes up 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. I'm guessing it would take a lot of burning to decrease that level, but I am not sure how to calculate that.
The problem is: Roughly 400 hundred years in the future, humans are thinking they need to burn some forests made predominantly of a plant species that produces a gas toxic to humans and other life-forms, that spread on Earth and suffocated a lot of other useful (for us) plant species. They were worried that the large-scale fires would lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate, but I can tell from the existing answer, that’s not going to be a problem, so they can go ahead with the plan.
I got the 19.5% threshold from this article: https://sciencing.com/minimum-oxygen-concentration-human-breathing-15546.html
But on a closer reading, I noticed it said the OPTIMAL range is between 19.5% and 23.5%, and the CRITICAL threshold for survival is 6%, so my mistake. Again, this makes the worries of the people in my story unfounded.
My question has been answered, thank you!
life fire oxygen cataclysms
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
closed as unclear what you're asking by Mołot, Ash, Renan, James♦ Nov 14 at 16:58
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
2
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
1
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
2
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I read that oxygen makes up 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. I'm guessing it would take a lot of burning to decrease that level, but I am not sure how to calculate that.
The problem is: Roughly 400 hundred years in the future, humans are thinking they need to burn some forests made predominantly of a plant species that produces a gas toxic to humans and other life-forms, that spread on Earth and suffocated a lot of other useful (for us) plant species. They were worried that the large-scale fires would lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate, but I can tell from the existing answer, that’s not going to be a problem, so they can go ahead with the plan.
I got the 19.5% threshold from this article: https://sciencing.com/minimum-oxygen-concentration-human-breathing-15546.html
But on a closer reading, I noticed it said the OPTIMAL range is between 19.5% and 23.5%, and the CRITICAL threshold for survival is 6%, so my mistake. Again, this makes the worries of the people in my story unfounded.
My question has been answered, thank you!
life fire oxygen cataclysms
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
I read that oxygen makes up 21% of the Earth's atmosphere. I'm guessing it would take a lot of burning to decrease that level, but I am not sure how to calculate that.
The problem is: Roughly 400 hundred years in the future, humans are thinking they need to burn some forests made predominantly of a plant species that produces a gas toxic to humans and other life-forms, that spread on Earth and suffocated a lot of other useful (for us) plant species. They were worried that the large-scale fires would lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate, but I can tell from the existing answer, that’s not going to be a problem, so they can go ahead with the plan.
I got the 19.5% threshold from this article: https://sciencing.com/minimum-oxygen-concentration-human-breathing-15546.html
But on a closer reading, I noticed it said the OPTIMAL range is between 19.5% and 23.5%, and the CRITICAL threshold for survival is 6%, so my mistake. Again, this makes the worries of the people in my story unfounded.
My question has been answered, thank you!
life fire oxygen cataclysms
life fire oxygen cataclysms
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
edited Nov 15 at 4:56
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
asked Nov 14 at 6:45
roxana_z
626
626
closed as unclear what you're asking by Mołot, Ash, Renan, James♦ Nov 14 at 16:58
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as unclear what you're asking by Mołot, Ash, Renan, James♦ Nov 14 at 16:58
Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
2
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
1
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
2
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33
|
show 5 more comments
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
2
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
1
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
2
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
2
2
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
1
1
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
2
2
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
accepted
Let's start with considering the entire mass of the atmosphere:
The total mean mass of the atmosphere is $5.1480 cdot 10^{18} kg$.
We know that Oxygen accounts for 21% in volume, and considering that
The density of air at sea level is about $1.2 kg/m^3$
We get that the "sea level" volume of the entire atmosphere is
$V =$$ 5.1480 cdot 10^{18} over 1.2$$=4.29 cdot 10^{18} m^3$.
You want to consume 1.5% of that volume (21 - 19.5), thus you want to consume
$M_{O_2}=4.29 cdot10^{18} [m^3]cdot 0.015 cdot 1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$$= 9.19 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Oxygen, considering that Oxygen density is $1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$.
Assuming you want to burn Carbon to consume all that Oxygen, how much Carbon would you need?
The chemical reaction for Carbon oxidation is
$C + O_2 = CO_2 + heat$
therefore for each mole of Oxygen you need a mole of Carbon. Considering that Oxygen to Carbon atomic weight ratio is 32/12, you would need
$M_C = M_{O_2} cdot $$12 over 32$ $=9.19 cdot 10^{16} cdot $$12over 32$$=3.5 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Carbon.
The 2011 estimated coal reserves in the entire world amount to $891 cdot 10^{12} kg$, just to give you a reference.
As additional note, burning that much carbon would release (taking the heat of combustion of anthracite)
$Heat = 32 [MJ/kg] cdot 891 cdot 10^{12} [kg] = 28.5 cdot 10^{15} MJ$, corresponding to about $6.7 cdot 10^6 MTon$, or about 1 million Tsar bombs...
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
|
show 5 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
18
down vote
accepted
Let's start with considering the entire mass of the atmosphere:
The total mean mass of the atmosphere is $5.1480 cdot 10^{18} kg$.
We know that Oxygen accounts for 21% in volume, and considering that
The density of air at sea level is about $1.2 kg/m^3$
We get that the "sea level" volume of the entire atmosphere is
$V =$$ 5.1480 cdot 10^{18} over 1.2$$=4.29 cdot 10^{18} m^3$.
You want to consume 1.5% of that volume (21 - 19.5), thus you want to consume
$M_{O_2}=4.29 cdot10^{18} [m^3]cdot 0.015 cdot 1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$$= 9.19 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Oxygen, considering that Oxygen density is $1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$.
Assuming you want to burn Carbon to consume all that Oxygen, how much Carbon would you need?
The chemical reaction for Carbon oxidation is
$C + O_2 = CO_2 + heat$
therefore for each mole of Oxygen you need a mole of Carbon. Considering that Oxygen to Carbon atomic weight ratio is 32/12, you would need
$M_C = M_{O_2} cdot $$12 over 32$ $=9.19 cdot 10^{16} cdot $$12over 32$$=3.5 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Carbon.
The 2011 estimated coal reserves in the entire world amount to $891 cdot 10^{12} kg$, just to give you a reference.
As additional note, burning that much carbon would release (taking the heat of combustion of anthracite)
$Heat = 32 [MJ/kg] cdot 891 cdot 10^{12} [kg] = 28.5 cdot 10^{15} MJ$, corresponding to about $6.7 cdot 10^6 MTon$, or about 1 million Tsar bombs...
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
accepted
Let's start with considering the entire mass of the atmosphere:
The total mean mass of the atmosphere is $5.1480 cdot 10^{18} kg$.
We know that Oxygen accounts for 21% in volume, and considering that
The density of air at sea level is about $1.2 kg/m^3$
We get that the "sea level" volume of the entire atmosphere is
$V =$$ 5.1480 cdot 10^{18} over 1.2$$=4.29 cdot 10^{18} m^3$.
You want to consume 1.5% of that volume (21 - 19.5), thus you want to consume
$M_{O_2}=4.29 cdot10^{18} [m^3]cdot 0.015 cdot 1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$$= 9.19 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Oxygen, considering that Oxygen density is $1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$.
Assuming you want to burn Carbon to consume all that Oxygen, how much Carbon would you need?
The chemical reaction for Carbon oxidation is
$C + O_2 = CO_2 + heat$
therefore for each mole of Oxygen you need a mole of Carbon. Considering that Oxygen to Carbon atomic weight ratio is 32/12, you would need
$M_C = M_{O_2} cdot $$12 over 32$ $=9.19 cdot 10^{16} cdot $$12over 32$$=3.5 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Carbon.
The 2011 estimated coal reserves in the entire world amount to $891 cdot 10^{12} kg$, just to give you a reference.
As additional note, burning that much carbon would release (taking the heat of combustion of anthracite)
$Heat = 32 [MJ/kg] cdot 891 cdot 10^{12} [kg] = 28.5 cdot 10^{15} MJ$, corresponding to about $6.7 cdot 10^6 MTon$, or about 1 million Tsar bombs...
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
18
down vote
accepted
up vote
18
down vote
accepted
Let's start with considering the entire mass of the atmosphere:
The total mean mass of the atmosphere is $5.1480 cdot 10^{18} kg$.
We know that Oxygen accounts for 21% in volume, and considering that
The density of air at sea level is about $1.2 kg/m^3$
We get that the "sea level" volume of the entire atmosphere is
$V =$$ 5.1480 cdot 10^{18} over 1.2$$=4.29 cdot 10^{18} m^3$.
You want to consume 1.5% of that volume (21 - 19.5), thus you want to consume
$M_{O_2}=4.29 cdot10^{18} [m^3]cdot 0.015 cdot 1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$$= 9.19 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Oxygen, considering that Oxygen density is $1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$.
Assuming you want to burn Carbon to consume all that Oxygen, how much Carbon would you need?
The chemical reaction for Carbon oxidation is
$C + O_2 = CO_2 + heat$
therefore for each mole of Oxygen you need a mole of Carbon. Considering that Oxygen to Carbon atomic weight ratio is 32/12, you would need
$M_C = M_{O_2} cdot $$12 over 32$ $=9.19 cdot 10^{16} cdot $$12over 32$$=3.5 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Carbon.
The 2011 estimated coal reserves in the entire world amount to $891 cdot 10^{12} kg$, just to give you a reference.
As additional note, burning that much carbon would release (taking the heat of combustion of anthracite)
$Heat = 32 [MJ/kg] cdot 891 cdot 10^{12} [kg] = 28.5 cdot 10^{15} MJ$, corresponding to about $6.7 cdot 10^6 MTon$, or about 1 million Tsar bombs...
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
Let's start with considering the entire mass of the atmosphere:
The total mean mass of the atmosphere is $5.1480 cdot 10^{18} kg$.
We know that Oxygen accounts for 21% in volume, and considering that
The density of air at sea level is about $1.2 kg/m^3$
We get that the "sea level" volume of the entire atmosphere is
$V =$$ 5.1480 cdot 10^{18} over 1.2$$=4.29 cdot 10^{18} m^3$.
You want to consume 1.5% of that volume (21 - 19.5), thus you want to consume
$M_{O_2}=4.29 cdot10^{18} [m^3]cdot 0.015 cdot 1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$$= 9.19 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Oxygen, considering that Oxygen density is $1.429 $$ [{kgover m^3}]$.
Assuming you want to burn Carbon to consume all that Oxygen, how much Carbon would you need?
The chemical reaction for Carbon oxidation is
$C + O_2 = CO_2 + heat$
therefore for each mole of Oxygen you need a mole of Carbon. Considering that Oxygen to Carbon atomic weight ratio is 32/12, you would need
$M_C = M_{O_2} cdot $$12 over 32$ $=9.19 cdot 10^{16} cdot $$12over 32$$=3.5 cdot 10^{16} kg$ of Carbon.
The 2011 estimated coal reserves in the entire world amount to $891 cdot 10^{12} kg$, just to give you a reference.
As additional note, burning that much carbon would release (taking the heat of combustion of anthracite)
$Heat = 32 [MJ/kg] cdot 891 cdot 10^{12} [kg] = 28.5 cdot 10^{15} MJ$, corresponding to about $6.7 cdot 10^6 MTon$, or about 1 million Tsar bombs...
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
edited Nov 14 at 20:23
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
answered Nov 14 at 7:25
L.Dutch♦
72.9k23176353
72.9k23176353
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
|
show 5 more comments
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
1
1
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
Beat me to it. According to this website, the total mass of carbon based life is 5,5e14 kg. So.… pretty hard to do that. vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/…
– Jens
Nov 14 at 7:37
3
3
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
On top of that as atmospheric levels dropped the oceans would give up dissolved oxygen back to the atmosphere as well, there'a about 970 million cubic kilometers of O2 down there.
– Ash
Nov 14 at 10:17
3
3
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
@Jens you got me wondering. Given that there was no oxygen in atmosphere until life freed it from co2, and some oxygen sank into iron oxide before atmosphere started to accumulate o2 — where did all that carbon go? We should have more than enough to bring atmospheric levels to 0, and it looks like we don't have enough to get it down by mere percents.
– Mołot
Nov 14 at 12:28
1
1
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
@Mołot: Answer: the Oxygen Catastrophe was followed by limestone precipitation which removed the excess carbon from the biosphere.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:20
1
1
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
@L.Dutch: Yeah, and the O3 came from water releasing H which is eventually lost to space.
– Joshua
Nov 14 at 16:36
|
show 5 more comments
Please clarify your question: Do you literally want to set the (fictional) world on fire to bind enough oxygen to: (A) lower the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to a level that humans would suffocate or (B) Change the composition of the atmosphere so that oxygen makes up 19,5% of the volume? Please keep in mind that oxygen content depends on the altitude (people on Mt. Everest suffocate even in our current atmosphere).
– Elmy
Nov 14 at 7:24
2
Are you saying people would suffocate if oxygen drops below 19.5 volume percent? That sounds extremely strange. Do you have any source for it?
– mathreadler
Nov 14 at 11:23
See also, here: earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/8930/…
– kingledion
Nov 14 at 11:56
1
I don't know where you got that 19.5% figure from but it's way off. I've done some pretty tough cycling at an altitude equivalent to around 15% at sea level -- it was certainly hard but people live higher than that. Here's a nice paper Hypsographic demography: The distribution of human population by altitude, Joel E. Cohen and Christopher Small, PNAS November 24, 1998 95 (24) 14009-14014 showing that around 20% of people have less than 19.5% O2 sea level equivalent due to altitude
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:27
2
... effectively you're just lifting everyone by about 600m (the source @mathreadler asked for probably doesn't exist, in other words). Some people live above 4000m, which is equivalent to 12% O2 at sea level
– Chris H
Nov 14 at 13:33