In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:19:31 -0400: Hi, [snip] >Robin van Spaandonk wrote: > >> >(By the >> >way, decreasing levels of free oxygen have not been examined, and >> >recent evidence shows this, too, is a threat.) >>[snip] >>At 400 quad / year energy use, and assuming that all the energy is >>derived from >>carbon combustion (e.g. anthracite), and further assuming that all >>the energy is . . . >> >>Also consider that people live quite well at considerable >>elevations, where the >>Oxygen levels are considerably reduced. >> >>In short, I suspect we could go on like this for at least 1000 years, without >>even noticing any effect on our breathing from Oxygen depletion. > >My, my, aren't you anthro-centric!
Whether or not we like to admit it, survival is what motivates us. Of course I'm anthropo-centric, I'm a human being. >People are not the only species, >and breathing is not the only form of respiration. Many other >species, and many chemical process, including possibly atmospheric >processes, are affected by the slight decrease in oxygen content. Name some. >There are also problems such as the oxygen exchange with water, and >fish, and so on. The fish are already dead. We have eaten them. (somewhat tongue in cheek). BTW global warming may be more important in this regard than actual Oxygen content in the air, since less Oxygen dissolves in warm water than in cold. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
