Jump to content

Oxygen


ModernArtist25

Recommended Posts

Ok so forests(trees) provide us oxygen to breath. But so does bacteria. If all trees are destroyed, would it still be possible for us to live because there would still be bacteria everywhere?? why or why not?

Edited by ModernArtist25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so forests(trees) provide us oxygen to breath. But so does bacteria.

About 2/3rds of the world's oxygen is produced by ocean-dwelling phytoplankton, not bacteria.

 

If all trees are destroyed, would it still be possible for us to live because there would still be bacteria everywhere?? why or why not?

Yes, we can survive permanently down to just above half the present oxygen concentration at sea-level; the phytoplankton production should cover the loss from trees being destroyed, in principle, but in practice, there will no doubt be severe consequences from it that may destroy us anyway.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a weird idea! How would those oxygen synthesizing bacteria/ phytoplanktons survive if all the trees disappear? There is something called interdependency in biosphere, that makes healthy ecological communities. Also there are other climatic influences of trees that is part of our survival

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a weird idea! How would those oxygen synthesizing bacteria/ phytoplanktons survive if all the trees disappear? There is something called interdependency in biosphere, that makes healthy ecological communities. Also there are other climatic influences of trees that is part of our survival

Ok. Tell us what that interdependency is. Who said any about it being ideal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 2/3rds of the world's oxygen is produced by ocean-dwelling phytoplankton, not bacteria.

 

 

Yes, we can survive permanently down to just above half the present oxygen concentration at sea-level; the phytoplankton production should cover the loss from trees being destroyed, in principle, but in practice, there will no doubt be severe consequences from it that may destroy us anyway.

As the falling oxygen will be replaced by increasing carbon dioxide the question is whether global warming or carbonic acid poisoning will get us first!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the falling oxygen will be replaced by increasing carbon dioxide the question is whether global warming or carbonic acid poisoning will get us first!

Won't the phytoplankton increase to offset the carbon dioxide increase and maintain some sort of equilibrium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't the phytoplankton increase to offset the carbon dioxide increase and maintain some sort of equilibrium?

I was referring to 'we can survive permanently down to just above half the present oxygen concentration at sea-level.'

 

As only trees are destroyed, presumably on a continuing basis, I'd expect everything but trees to increase to replace the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to 'we can survive permanently down to just above half the present oxygen concentration at sea-level.'

 

As only trees are destroyed, presumably on a continuing basis, I'd expect everything but trees to increase to replace the trees.

Right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 2/3rds of the world's oxygen is produced by ocean-dwelling phytoplankton, not bacteria. Yes, we can survive permanently down to just above half the present oxygen concentration at sea-level; the phytoplankton production should cover the loss from trees being destroyed, in principle, but in practice, there will no doubt be severe consequences from it that may destroy us anyway.

A significant part of phytoplankton are bacteria (mostly cyanobacteria).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As only trees are destroyed, presumably on a continuing basis, I'd expect everything but trees to increase to replace the trees.

 

 

That depends on both, the reason for the tree's demise and the speed of that demise, I see no reason to suppose the planet would continue to support flora, given the body-blow to it's homeostasis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That depends on both, the reason for the tree's demise and the speed of that demise, I see no reason to suppose the planet would continue to support flora, given the body-blow to it's homeostasis.

Life would continue but not as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.