Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Security

Overview

State security

There have been many concerns posted online regarding the militarization of police forces. I believe the reasons for this are two-fold, the first is practical, the second strategic.




On a practical level, the militarization of the police is the reflection of the deeper issue with guns. If I was tasked to raid a crack house, I honestly think I would want a well armed SWAT team.
The social impacts of climate change are going to get ugly for the police. It's a dichotomy. Arm them and worry about a military state, unArm them and worry about your neighbor.
Have a look at all the officers killed by gunfire on the following page
http://www.odmp.org/search/year
It's true there may not be a definite statistical trend, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a statistic.

The larger issue is the more important, with a less well defined moral boundary. With climate change is going to come migration, and poverty. The government is well aware of itThere will be migrations of people. I am going to make huge generalizations here but as specified elsewhere, they will be uneducated, poor, potentially sick and desperate. There will be a lack of food and affordable places to live. Added to that volatile mix, it will be hot. Heat and violence are linked, and again.
It would seem to the general public that governments are completely ignorant of climate change. I don't believe it. People are justified in saying that many governments are doing everything in their power to accelerate climate change, they may be right. But I think the governments are actually fully aware of what is coming. They are ignoring the climate because they see no other way to grow the economy. Just as the issue about WMDs in Iraq was really about oil, denial at higher echelons is about growth. Their thoughts may well be if we can continue economic growth we have a better chance to survive what is around the corner. They know exactly what we know, why wouldn't they? They're the ones silencing the scientists. Why would you silence them if you were not afraid of what they had to say?

A bankrupt country facing a baby boomer tidal wave, will not make the adjustments that will be required. 

Imagine a world with 9 billion, that can sustain 3 billion. A country with high unemployment and with high immigration, is a recipe for social conflict and extremism. Let's take an example. During the recent extreme heat in India, due to corruption some local power stations in India diverted power to more affluent neighborhoods. The result, the mobs burnt some of the power stations down. Understandable, and it seems like shooting yourself in the foot. It is however, the natural reaction of the oppressed. 

It may well be that certain levels of collateral damage have already been accepted. That is what I believe the police are being prepared for. Societal cohesion at any cost. What price are we willing to pay for the security of our communities?

Is all this speculation? Seems not.

I would conclude that this is beyond our control and that there is no point in fighting it. If the correct preparations are made, no extreme acts will be required.

Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For violence has a habit of returning;
...
For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
And then its violence will return, and kill it.

Violence, even well intentioned,
always rebounds upon oneself.

When things get hard, fighting them will only cause greater distress to a failing society, it would create a situation where evil finds more opportunity.
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
And lean years follow a great war.


What to do? Again, be prepared, so that you don't have to be part of the mob.

For the rest, I am going to focus on personal security. 


Personal security

It doesn't matter what sort of oasis you setup, you are going to have to protect it. The easiest way to do that is by having the right location to begin with.

Once these considerations have been taken into account, then the choice is to stay or go. It comes down to this. If you stay in an area that is unsustainable for much of the population, then your considerations are going to be about initial defense and then implementing adaptions that will sustain you. If you choose to go to an area that environmentally can sustain many people then you would have to go and fortify because the threats will be constant.

Personally, I will choose adaptation because mankind has a propensity for warfare. Mentally weak people will not stay in an area with a hostile environmental conditions. They will be unprepared, and so, forced to migrate away. That means initially, strong defense will be required. However, there will be many targets, so any strong defense will not be met with a protracted offense. Psychologically, they will have accepted climate change and realized that they cannot stay where they are. In that sense, fighting against an entrenched foe has a limited payoff.

It is inevitable that gangs will increase. Gangs offer security. Research has shown the groups lack the morals of the individual. It is not a good mix. 
You have to wonder sometimes how much humanity really has progressed beyond base drives.


Do not stay in a densely populated area, it is unsustainable.
Know your neighbors.
Have an alarm.
Get a dog
Get a gravel driveway.
Avoid going out on your own.
Research non-lethal defensive weapons.
Get your kids into martial arts
Grow brambles as a hedge.
If you don't have a high front fence then don't grow anything that blocks a view of your windows from the road. 
That, or grow a high thorny hedge around your entire block. The problem then is the driveway gate which will have to be tall and difficult to climb.

Keep a low profile, drive a bomb of a car, wear daggy clothes.



Underground facilities

The benefits are many. It was, and still is the best form of defence against attack, the elements and vermin.
The ultimate security is provided in underground facilities. With Derinkuyu being the prime example of how effective it can be even at the level of a community. This does not equate to being a caveman. This is from Coober Pedy




Tunneling has and is an effective measure against a much superior force as was demonstrated by the Viet Cong in the Cu Chi Tunnels.




http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/06/12/how-to-get-out-of-prism-and-avoid-nsa-spying/

The oceans are dying


Red tide at Bondi.
Our entire atmosphere is based on the oceans. When they change it is impossible that there will be no effect on life on Earth.This will start with a post that has been circulating the Net. It is legitimate as you can tell from the hyperlinks. At the end I give evidence to what is causing it, but also present some other worrying facts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millions of fish are suddenly dying all over the planet.  In fact, there have been dozens of mass fish death events reported in the past month alone.  So why is this happening?  Why are fish dying in unprecedented numbers all over the world?  When more than six tons of fish died in Marina Del Ray over the weekend, it made headlines all over the United States.  But the truth is that what just happened off the southern California coast is just the tip of the iceberg.  In 2014, mass fish die-offs have pretty much become a daily event globally.  Individually, each event could perhaps be dismissed as an anomaly, but as you will see below when they are all put together into one list it truly is rather stunning.  So is there a reason why so many fish are dying?  Is there something that connects these mass fish death events?  Has something about our environment changed?  The following are just a few examples of the mass fish death reports that have been coming in day after day from all over the globe. Scroll to the end for my take on it…
*In April, 500,000 carp were found “floating belly-up in Kentucky’s Cumberland River“.
*Over the weekend, thousands upon thousands of fish died just off the southern California coastline
California Fish and Wildlife workers are still scooping dead sea life from the surface of the harbor Monday after thousands of dead anchovies, stingrays and even an octopus died and floated up over the weekend.
So far officials have cleaned up 6 tons of dead fish, and they still have a long way to go.
*The death of approximately 35,000 fish up in Minnesota is being blamed on a “lack of oxygen“.
*The recent die off of thousands of fish in the Shark River near Belmar, New Jersey is also being blamed on “oxygen depletion“.
*Officials in Menifee, California are still trying to figure out what caused the death of thousands of fish in Menifee Lake a few weeks ago…
Authorities continued testing the water in Menifee Lake Friday after thousands of dead fish have been seen floating since last weekend.
Menifee city officials first heard reports Saturday of floating fish at the lake, which is located on private property about a half-mile east of the 215 Freeway.
*In the Gulf of Mexico, dolphins and sea turtles are dying “in record numbers“.
*Maryland officials are still puzzled by the death of 7,000 Atlantic menhaden last month…
State environmental scientists are investigating the cause of a fish kill that left about 7,000 dead Atlantic menhaden in waters that include the Inner Harbor and Fells Point.
Jay Apperson, spokesman for the Maryland Department of the Environment, said that biologists went by boat on Tuesday to the area of Monday’s fish kill. He says the area extended from the mouth of the Patapsco River, up the Baltimore Harbor to Fells Point and Fort McHenry.
*Mass fish die-offs in Lake Champlain up in Vermont are being called “the new normal” by government officials.
*Along the coast of northern California, seals and young sea lions are dying “in record numbers“.
*Three months ago, farmers in Singapore lost 160 tons of fish to a mass die-off event.
*Back in September, approximately 40 kilometers of the Fuhe River in China “was covered with dead fish“.
*Also during last September, close to ten tons of dead fish were found floating on a lake near the town of Komotini, Greece.
The following are some more examples of mass fish death events from just the past several weeks that come from a list compiled on another website
*****
17th May 2014 – Masses of fish turn up dead in a marina in Pultneyville, New York, AmericaLink
16th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Aragatsotn, ArmeniaLink
15th May 2014 – Hundreds of fish dying off ‘due to pollution’ in the wetlands of Rewalsar, IndiaLink
14th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing ashore in Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, CanadaLink
13th May 2014 – Tens of thousands of dead fish wash up along coast of Tasmania, AustraliaLink
12th May 2014 – Mass death of fish in the river Eden ‘is a mystery’ in Cumbria,EnglandLink
11th May 2014 – Thousands of dead Puffer Fish, also dead turtles washing up on various beaches in Colombia and Costa RicaLink and here
11th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish found in a pond is ‘a mystery’ in Southborough, EnglandLink
10th May 2014 – Thousands of fish dead due to pollution in spring in Sikkim,IndiaLink
9th May 2014 – Die off of Fish ’causes panic’ in the Luda Yana River in Bulgaria.Link
8th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake ‘shock residents’ in Mangalore, IndiaLink
8th May 2014 – 12 TONS of dead fish removed from lakes in Chisago County, Minnesota, AmericaLink
7th May 2014 – Massive die off of fish in reservoirs in Quanzhou, ChinaLink
7th May 2014 – Thousands of fish found dead on the shores of Roatan,HondurasLink
5th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish wash up on a beach ‘a mystery’ in San Antonio Oeste, ArgentinaLink
5th May 2014 – Mass death of fish found in lakes in Almindingen, DenmarkLink
4th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Fujian, ChinaLink
3rd May 2014 – 1,000+ dead fish wash ashore along a lake in Ontario, Canada.Link
2nd May 2014 – 40,000 fish die suddenly in a dam in Piaui, BrazilLink
30th April 2014 – Mass fish kill ‘worst I’ve seen in 26 years of working here’ in Iowa, AmericaLink
30th April 2014 – Large amount of dead fish found floating along a river in Xiasha District, ChinaLink
29th April 2014 – Dozens of sea turtles are washing up dead in South Mississippi,AmericaLink
29th April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing up along the shores of Lakes in Wisconsin, AmericaLink
28th April 2014 – Turtles and other marine life continue to wash up dead in Bari,ItalyLink
28th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in the Mogi River in BrazilLink
25th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in a reservoir in Nanchong, ChinaLink
24th April 2014 – Large amount of fish wash up dead along a river in La Chorrera, PanamaLink
23rd April 2014 – 2 Million fish found dead in a dam in Tehran, IranLink
23rd April 2014 – Mass die off of fish in Island lake in Ontario, CanadaLink
23rd April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake in Mudanjiang, China.Link
22nd April 2014 – 1,000 fish found dead in Oona River, County Tyrone,Northern IrelandLink
21st April 2014 – Large amounts of fish washing up dead along the Panchganga River in IndiaLink
19th April 2014 – MILLIONS of dead fish found floating in Thondamanaru Lagoon, Sri LankaLink
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And remember, this list represents events that have happened in just a little over the past month.
So what is causing all of these mass fish death events? There might be multiple causes, such as pollution or oxygen level depletion in frozen lakes. There are plenty of obvious culprits for river systems you only have to look at the following image to realize that it would take a very special fish to be able to live in the Indian Yamuna river.

80% of animals rely on groundwater and rivers for survival. "30 out of the 47 largest rivers around the world record at least medium threat levels at the mouth" Read more. The threats for river systems are huge and have been covered extensively elsewhere. What will be targeted here is what is occurring in the oceans.

The concern is 2 fold. The first is dissolved oxygen in the oceans. That allows fish to breathe. The second is acidification. That restricts the ability of crustaceans to form shells. 

The oceans dissolved oxygen levels are decreasing. Basically as temperatures increase, the ability of water to hold dissolved oxygen decreases.
Here is a chart that shows the dissolved oxygen ocean levels.
http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/images/KV_Oceans_1_528x317.png
The affects of that can be shown from anecdotal evidence;

We know jellyfish populations are increasing. That is consistent with oxygen depletion.

Toxic Algal blooms are increasing, again consistent with oxygen depletion.

Shark sightings and attacks are increasing . That seems consistent with oxygen depletion at depth. It would force fish to shallower depths, and the predators would follow. In addition, larger fish such as sharks suffer first under oxygen depletion so they are forced up.

Lobster populations are decreasing.
Despite booming populations of adult lobsters, marine biologists and fisheries along the northern Atlantic coast of the United States are concerned about a dramatic population decline for young larval lobsters. Scientists searching for the cause of this drop see signs that ocean currents and warmer ocean waters are possible culprits.
Dr. Rick Wahle, research professor for the School of Marine Science at the University of Maine and founder of the American Lobster Settlement Index, has been tracking lobster populations since 1989. The scope of his study today tracks the waters in New England and Atlantic Canada.
Wahle and his crew of divers are tasked with counting the larval populations of American lobster. He told AccuWeather.com that the last few years have seen some downturn, but that recently the decrease was more drastic.
“In 2013 we saw one of the most widespread downturns in the history of [this study] for sure,” Wahle said.


Then I came across this. Apparently large numbers of fish are congregating around methane hydrates (sea floor vents) without an obvious food source. What are they doing there? There is a lack of obvious prey. Could it also be related to the oxygen levels in the ocean? Again, large fish suffer first when dissolved oxygen decreases. If oxygen depletion causes them to suffocate what would attract them to the hydrates?
I started doing some research, and in turns out there is a type II methanotroph called Methylomirabilis oxyfera, that generates its own oxygen – without light. It uses that oxygen to eat methane. As a byproduct it produces H2O. There are a lot of these methanotrophs around the methane hydrates. So, is it possible that there is an abundance of marine life around these methane hydrates because the fish are actually suffocating? Despite the risks of predation, the methane hydrates are a breath of fresh oxygen for the fish.


Many of these issues are consistent with oxygen depletion, and it has been proven to be happening. There are areas of the ocean known as Oxygen Minimum Zones (OMZ). Unfortunately, these are expanding with the consequence "Reduced oxygen levels may have dramatic consequences for ecosystems and coastal economies"

So why aren't these effects being noticed more? The reason is the fish are being forced up from the depths in order to breathe, so there is ample fishing and the statistics look good. "What you end up with is overly optimistic data because the animals are squeezed in density in that part of the world, which is higher than in others. What you need to do is correct for that.Eric Prince, a research fisheries biologist. 

There will come a time, and probably has already been reached, where humanity will massacre what remains of the fish populations as they are easy pickings. If that doesn't do it, a global warming increase of 2.5C (we are at 0.8C) would cause the OMZ to expand significantly "The oxygen minimum zone in the Atlantic is going to start in North Africa and go all the way down to the tip of South Africa. It’s going to cover every single part of the eastern South American coast." from this interview.

As bad as that is, in addition, the ocean is acidifying as a byproduct of absorbing C02. The acidification rate is occurring at a rate 10 times that of any geological time period in history. Acidification is destroying the organisms at the bottom of the oceanic food chain. 
From this study "
 “Our study showed that all animal groups we considered are affected negatively by higher carbon dioxide concentrations. Corals, echinoderms and molluscs above all react very sensitively to a decline in the pH value ... the sensitivity of the animals to a declining pH value may increase if the sea temperature rises simultaneously." We have both rising temperatures and declining pH. As a result the food chain will re-arrange itself. 
Benign phytoplankton, the good, as against toxic algae, the bad, are decreasing. Along with the declines are also decreasing Zooplankton populations. Benign phytoplankton and the Zooplankton are the basis of the ocean food chain, CO2 absorbtion, and up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe.



As the food chain re-arranges, the winners will be jellyfish, toxic algae and bacteria  (such as what has happened in the Baltic sea). The losers will be numerous species, among them the whales, and us.

Some people don't realize that the temperature of the Earth is increasing at a faster rate than what we feel. The temperature increases are being stored in the ocean. Water is a much more effective thermal mass than is dirt. If the temperature was in the atmosphere it would have more of a chance of escaping into space. However, as greenhouse gases increase so the ability of heat to escape declines. Heat does not just disappear.
"Heat is a form of energy (thermal energy) derived from the temperature difference between a body and its surrounding system. Accordingly, the principle of the conservation of heat is implied by the conservation of energy contained in the first law of thermodynamics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transformed from one form to another." here
That heat releases from the Pacific ocean into the atmosphere during an El Nino event, which almost looks certain to occur now (latest June prediction).

To show the current sea temperature situation, the image I am using is the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies for 3rd June 2014 from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. When scientists talk about temperature anomalies they are talking about temperature departures from the base. The base is the average temperatures established from 1880 when reliable records began. 
Global Daily Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly

It is important to realize that these are only surface temperatures. But considerable parts of the ocean are displaying 1-2C already. There is considerable temperature stored deeper which is a concern in its own right, but not one that will be covered here (Google "seabed methane melt" or "Sea Glacial melt"). On a separate note is the temperatures in the Indian ocean in the image. That is where the methane hydrates, discussed previously, were located. The water there is unusually warm, which would result in reduced dissolved oxygen.

So currently there is an increasing rate of CO2 in the atmosphere and increasing air and water temperatures. How far will the temperatures go? Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the UN centralized body that is monitoring climate change. The IPCC has been forced by governments to become more and more conservative in their predictions. The predictions are based on various atmospheric states called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). The highest RCP is 8.5. For anyone wanting the full scientific details of an estimated RCP8.5 scenario (that is warming 4C by 2100) then here is the article. Keep in mind, 4C is at the high end of the  IPCC predictions. Realistically, it is looking very likely that we will blow past that prediction. 4C by 2060 is more realistic. 4C doesn't sound like much, but that would actually be a horrendous outcome and threaten our species ability to live in many regions of the planet for many reasons beyond simply what is discussed here (Google heat stress).

Finally, nuclear pollution of the oceans is inevitable.

There seems no other way to view it, our oceans are dying. The implications of this for our food chain is immense. Somewhere between 400 to 800 million people rely on the ocean as a primary source of protein. There seems no way to fix it. Given the continuing buildup of CO2, it is very unlikely to be stopped, and accelerating atmospheric methane is going to ensure that temperatures continue to rise. The effect on the oceans will remain for thousands of years (about 70 actually). Eventually, people may regret their ocean front properties. The byproducts of algal blooms will be that parts of the sea will turn red as blood and stink, and that stench is actually harmful to humans to breathe

I can't avoid a connection to Revelations 16:3-4 in the bible. It seems the Angel of death is us. What a legacy we will leave, our grandchildren will curse the water we once swam in.

The timeline

All predictions for climate change are on the low side. This is why.

So when are things likely to get very bad. All these issues will happen together but some will be more pronounced at different times. As I see it, first will be the effects of peak oil causing inflation, followed by the baby boomers resulting in asset deflation, followed by the climate affecting both. 

The following is from this post, it seems to correlate closely with most commentators;
■ Based on Figure 21 from the Copenhagen Diagnosis (pdf; click for high-res version), I put 1½°C arriving shortly after 2020. Call it 2022 for a clean decade from now.
Note: All science in this field is done in °C
■ We’re at .8°C now [2012] with an equal amount, totaling 1½°C, in the pipeline and guaranteed. When we get to 1½°C, will 3°C (the start of “mass extinction“) also be in the pipeline? If that 1:2 ratio (0.8°C now : 1.5°C coming) holds, I’d say Yes. [Update: As of mid-2014, the total including the pipeline is now 2°C.]
■ If true, we’ll know in a decade if the “mass extinction” scenario is inevitable. Would I love to be wrong? Of course; I plan to be alive in a decade. But should we plan on having more time than a decade to dither and coddle the rich? You pick — choices are Yes and No.
■ Using Figure 21 again, when does 3°C actually arrive? The most aggressive scenario gives us actual 3°C between 2050–2060.
■ If so, that’s all she wrote. In 2055, say, when 3°C shows up, I’ll bet all I own that 6°C is in the pipeline. 2055 will mark the start of a new geological era.
This estimate of 2050 also correlates to this post. Society will experience an extreme collapse prior to that period though due to all the factors (and many more) outlined here and at other climate change blogs. But it is not only climate change, there is also the aging population, peak oil, oceanic death ... the list is long. 

However, I don't agree with the foregone conclusions from that point on. The conclusion is that the warming will continue and accelerate from there onward. However, that does not seem possible. 
For a number of points;

  • From Greenland alone you would have 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (684,000 cu mi) of cold water being dumped into the sea. That would have at least 2 effects;

    1. Initially heating from the albedo affect of the loss of arctic ice would be countered by the cold water.
    2. It is likely the cold fresh water would shut down or at least slow down the Thermohaline circulation. That would decrease the warm water flowing to the arctic;
      • That would decrease the rate at which the methane hydrates melt. That means;
        • The rate of change for the methane emissions would decrease, but not stop.
      • If it stopped completely parts of the whole would be thrown back into an ice age, but that is assuming a lot of very complex interactions. It does however have a precedent that the Younger Dryas may have been caused by a shutdown of the The Gulf Stream from a sudden inflow of fresh water.
    3. The isostatic rebound from the loss of that huge amount of weight in such a small time-frame would result in volcanoes. Those volcanoes would pump sulfides into the atmosphere which would reflect some of the sun's heat, cooling the atmosphere.
    4. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet, by itself, would raise the sea level 7m that in turn would be a huge thermal mass to initially absorb increased temperatures. That is not factoring glaciers in Antarctica, Canada, South America and the Tibetan plateau.

  • Economic modeling puts an economic collapse at 2015 - 2020. For many reasons, society would collapse,  not all, but a significant portion. For example, China will have its own Thorium reactors with a local source for fuel. Iran also would have the means to power significant underground cities, though they will need supplies. So certainly parts will continue. However, the collapse of civilization as we know it would have profound impacts on CO2 emissions. So;
    • There would be no further significant CO2 pollution. That would leave the existing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere for roughly 40 years. During that time;
      • The newly growing Northern forests would be a carbon sink
      • The oceans would continue to be a carbon sink (albeit at a much slower rate than today)
There is a way to economically mitigate the pending collapse. The issue is it is unlikely to be implemented in time. Again there is a way to reverse the warming over a long period of time, but again I fear it will not be implemented in time. Both those solutions require foresight to implement before the real problems manifest themselves, and both would require a long time to resolve the issues. However, our political structure is based on short periods.

So my conclusion is that a collapse is certain, but what happens from that point on is less sure. There may be actually unforeseen positive feedbacks like methane emissions from under the Greenland ice sheet or Antarctica. As well as a host of others. There are a lot of unknowns.

Certainly there will be a fragmentation of the world's civilization. Countries that have made preparations will barely survive in any form, however countries that haven't prepared will experience catastrophic collapse. In this context I find it hard to imagine that the US will make it in its current form. The disintegration will be uneven. Places affected by migration, heat and drought will become less productive and have larger social issues.
Its refusal to even accept that the climate is changing will mean it will respond to the threats too late. Its huge cache of personal weapons, its massive debt, its changing climate and a flood of people coming from the south to escape drought and heat would destabilize parts of it.

Perhaps the gun issue will be the deciding factor for the US. The Tao Te Ching states "Weapons of war are instruments of disaster. They are rejected by all beings. Thus a person of Tao will not dwell upon them."

The violence that will result from migration will overshadow the attempts of decent people to survive and provide for others, and the government will not have the funds to protect them. Under an evolutionary perspective, the hunter and the prey are balanced by the preys ability to create defenses. The local government debts will affect (and already has) the police. However, it needs to be recognized that this will not be an even gradual descent. In the US between local government debt and unfunded liabilities, some areas are going to be much better off than others


Certain centres are already militarizing their police forces.
With a lack of defense, the prey will join gangs or be wiped out in poorer urban centres. What will remain will be hunter (police) against hunter (gangs), in an environment with less and less food.



So given the above as a guide we have a decade to prepare. Seems like it is a lot, but it is not. It would be easier if there was a recognition of the problem among the people who are going to be most affected. But unfortunately, they are lost in the day to day details of their lives. In addition, they are being fed misinformation, or no information at all. The issue is that it is a preparation, for an extremely hostile environment.

Oxygen

Don't take for granted what you can't replace. 

This article is about the atmosphere's oxygen levels. At first this topic might appear done and dusted. It is true that burning fossil fuels depletes oxygen. However, there are significant reserves of oxygen in the atmosphere. So much so that, in the last 20 years we have only decreased it by 0.03%. But first, some technical background:

"It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air." (Dr Ralph Keeling)

".. the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1, 2005 would have been ... 0.095% of the preindustrial amount." (article)
We have lost 0.095% of the atmospheric oxygen through the burning of fossil fuels. It is still happening (current measurements). 

From here "fossil fuel burning is depleting atmospheric oxygen at a rate of almost 1000 tons per second". If we burnt all known sources of fossil fuel we would deplete the atmosphere by 3.3%. Given the current oxygen content at 21% remove 3.3% = 17.7% of oxygen.
That is the equivalent of living at an altitude of 1524m. However, I don't expect we will burn all the fossil fuels.

So what is the problem?

Today we have 20.95% oxygen in the atmosphere, but the geological history has shown periods of 10-15% atmospheric oxygen.
"We found that particularly low oxygen levels coincided with intervals of elevated global temperatures and high carbon dioxide concentrations" (article)

Nature is a fine balance. Look at where the oxygen comes from, at least 70% of the worlds oxygen is generated by phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are one celled plants in the ocean. They use the energy from the sun, and the nutrients from the ocean and produce oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis. These tiny plants are under threat from ocean warming and acidification. 

"... results suggest that changes in the pH at the cell surface of plankton could adversely affect cellular equilibrium, leading to poor growth if not death"
"The implications of our research are profound," said Professor Flynn. "They suggest scope for a more serious impact of oceanic acidification upon marine plankton than previously thought."
(link)
"The new research means that ocean warming will impact plankton, and in turn drive a vicious cycle of climate change."
(link)

As stated previously phytoplankton are adversely affected by acidification, and also by Surface Sea Temperature (SST). There are many types of phytoplankton. The benign types are the food source of the ocean. But there are other toxic types. Given the right environment the toxic ones will out compete the benign ones. With the result that under warming conditions toxic algal blooms will increase.(link)

Benign phytoplankton, the good, are decreasing. Along with the declines are also decreasing Zooplankton populations. Benign phytoplankton and the Zooplankton are the basis of the ocean food chain, CO2 absorbtion, and up to 70% of the oxygen we breathe. 



The effects are starting to be seen in the food chain.

Let's make a hypothesis on where this could head to, and I admit this is speculation. Ocean acidification decreases the availability of benign phytoplankton. So less oxygen is being produced. However, the ocean is still absorbing oxygen from the atmosphere via diffusion. Ocean acidification increases toxic algal blooms, which are feeding on agricultural pollutants. When the algae die off from over population the bacteria decompose the algae and as they do that, they consume oxygen. They consume more dissolved oxygen than the algae produced. There is nothing to replace the oxygen at the rate that the ocean is consuming it. The land produces roughly 30% of the worlds oxygen. The ocean becomes an oxygen sponge. The more anaerobic it becomes the more purple and green bacteria will dominate.

Unless the land mass is generating at least the same amount of oxygen that the ocean is consuming then our atmosphere will become toxic to human life. Originally it was estimated phytoplankton has decreased 40% from 1950. (link) The original paper published in nature. Apparently new algorithms in satellite imagery meant a better detection of oceanic plankton in the Southern Ocean. So science refined its predictions. The latest is this report which is predicting 6% loss of phytoplankton, with a 2C rise, without factoring in acidification.

Significantly better than the previous estimate, but even a 6% loss would reduce the amount of oxygen coming from the ocean.
Some back of the envelope calculations...
Oxygen is 20.95% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is generated from 30% (land based) + 70% (sea based)
Decreasing the seas ability to generate oxygen by 6% would result in;
20.95/100 = x/95.8
20.07% with a 2C rise, not factoring acidification and land desertification

The problem with factoring acidification is that colder water absorbs higher levels of CO2 (more acidification) than warmer water. Warmer water, also absorbs less oxygen, decreasing dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen minimum zones (aka dead zones). 
Same calculation, 3C rise? For now we will assume a linear effect in the ocean, that would result in a 9% reduction of oxygen generation from the ocean. 
20.95/100 = x/93.7 =>  19.63% oxygen without factoring the effects of acidification and land desertification.

 "if the oxygen level in such an environment falls below 19.5% it is oxygen deficient, putting occupants of the confined space at risk of losing consciousness and death." (OSHA rules on atmospheres in closed environments)

Obviously with the concentration of fossil fuel burning in particular areas oxygen levels are not constant. As mentioned previously between 1990 and 2008 (say 20 years), we have lost 0.0317%. Assume that was to continue at a linear rate, therefore if we hit 3C in 20 years global oxygen will be at roughly 19.6%.
This would imply that certain areas will go oxygen deficient at a 3C rise.
Compare the following images. The first from California, the other from the southern tip of Australia
LJO O2 Plot
CGO O2 Plot
The difference is pretty obvious. The difference may be from colder waters (more phytoplankton) in the southern ocean, or from increased CO2 burning in the US. Regardless, given the 19.6% estimate if 3C in 20 years is an average, then some areas are going to be more at risk than others.
That is not taking into account desertification of the land. "Due to drought and desertification each year 12 million hectares are lost (23 hectares/minute!)..." (link)
We are getting closer to localized oxygen deficiency.  My estimate would be that city centres would be the most depleted. Cities are hotter than the suburbs usually by 1-2C. A city's heat island effect creates low pressure, this pulls in air from the suburbs. The suburbs contain the most traffic during peak hours. Therefore, air being pulled towards the city centre has been subjected to fossil fuel combustion. As mentioned previously, that air would be oxygen depleted. A city, particularly one land locked, would suffer as a result.


Geological record

A number of times in history have seen ocean acidification events. It seems that when it was gradual the systems adapted. When the change was dramatic, large die-backs of plankton resulted. That coincides with our current situation. The recurring theme seems to be that higher latitudes performed better (link) in regards to plankton survival.

What's the effect of low oxygen levels on our body? 
Low oxygen levels also can have a harmful affect on brain function and physical ability. Attention span and concentration may be reduced. Memory and mood can be affected. Abstract reasoning and problem solving skills can be impaired. Speech may become affected. Simple sensory and motor skills may become difficult. Complex tasks that require gross and fine motor skills become harder. This may include tasks such as driving a car and operating equipment. Poor endurance for exercise, muscle weakness and impaired coordination also can be seen. Severe hypoxemia is lifethreatening. It can ultimately lead to confusion, coma and death. (link)

This is a potentially huge problem, it may not hit for a while, but it really seems to be gathering pace. A lot of linear assumptions have been made in coming to these conclusions, let's hope they stay that way.

A global fix would be difficult without radical geo-engineering to cool the water temperature. Initially, the following low tech ideas might help (pulled from the web I don't remember where). But possibly the better approach might be to grow your own phytoplankton. It can be used as a food source for fish and people (if untainted), and it generates oxygen. The other, more industrial, approach is to use electrolysis to generate hydrogen and oxygen from solar cells. Obviously, not for everyone.

Things You Can Do to Improve Your Air and Oxygen Intake
Use plants to reduce indoor air pollution. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. 
The recommended number of plants is 2 for every 100 square feet of interior space (assuming 8 to 10 feet ceilings) with groupings of plants being helpful. The more leaves the plant has, the better. Covering potting soil with a layer of aquarium gravel will help reduce mold spores. Even four or five plants in a room can make a difference in air quality. Some of the best plants for cleaning air indoors are:
  • Chinese Evergreen
  • Gerbera Daisy
  • Aloe Vera
  • English Ivy
  • Bamboo
  • Palm
  • Banana
  • Spider Plant
  • Mum
  • Heart-Leaf Philodendron
  • Janet Craig
  • Devil's Ivy
  • Split-Leaf Philodendron
  • Warneckie Snake Plant
  • Ficus (Weeping Fig)
  • Corn Plant
  • Peace
  • Lily Madagascar Dragon Tree
  • Umbrella Plant
  • Arrowhead Plant
Here is another good article on oxygen generating plants.