[cgugino]

Not today, but the trend is worrying, especially if the rate increases. What will this look like in 50 years? 1,000?

[ccn0p]

am i missing something? this is right in the FAQ:

``` Should we be concerned that the atmospheric oxygen supply is declining?

This point was addressed in an article by Broecker (Science, Vol. 168, 1537-1538, 1970). Although written many years ago, the basic point made by the article remains valid. The maximum potential loss of O2 from fuel burning, when fossil fuel reserves (mostly coal) are exhausted is only a few percent of the atmospheric burden. Since even this loss will take many centuries to materialize, it's hard to see this as high on the list of possible environmental concerns. ```

[bioinformatics]

50 * 0.0019% = 0.00095 1000 * 0.0019% = 1.9%

[booi]

Previous commenter said if the loss accelerates. Larger and larger changes each year would be more than worrisome.

[ljf]

I agree, we should consider that further oxygen loss could come from long burning wild fires etc, should the environment lend itself to a higher propensity to them. This could both burn oxygen and remove plants that would therefore not create and replace oxygen (in the short terms at least).

I am sure there are some weird feedback loops we are going to see in the next century or two, that aren't yet considered an issue.

[roenxi]

We're quite likely to start running out of fossil fuels in the next few decades. It is unlikely that the loss will accelerate.

[engineer_22]

To play devil's advocate: Nothing suggests the trend will accelerate. It is just as likely to decelerate.