"One thing they are "gong" [sic] to do is point out that if the ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is solely due to man-made combustion of fossil fuels, laws of chemistry and physics have been violated. For every molecule of carbon, two molecules of oxygen are consumed. Therefore, if the rise in CO2 is due to such combustion, then we should observe a decrease in atmospheric O2 by a factor twice as great. I have seen no evidence to suggest that global O2 is decreasing at all." (H. Muhlphart )
Ouch! My response:
No law of chemistry and physics has been violated by assuming that the increasing CO2 comes from combustion of fossil fuels. The reason no decrease in O2 is "noticed" is because the loss due to the formation of carbon dioxide is very small compared to the total amount of oxygen. If you increase the amount of CO2 by 100 ppm (more or less what's predicted in the next 50 years), the decrease in O2 is from 209,460 ppm to 209,360 ppm. That's the equivalent of being at the top of less than a 30 foot hill. You certainly don't notice any change in the oxygen levels between the basement and second floor of a house, do you?
And I didn't even bother with the notion that carbon dioxide "eats" two oxygen atoms no matter what carbon source you make it from - fossil fuel or respiration. Or that it's one carbon atom to one oxygen molecule. At this level of understanding of the basic science, you are not simply not entitled to an opinion on the matter.