The Pacific Ocean

[Ant Sinclair]

If the phytoplankton on the Pacifics' Surface All dies off, would this cause negative consequences for Man-Kind because of less Oxygen production into Earths' Atmosphere?

[Strange]

From looking into your other questions, it looks like about half the atmospheric oxygen is produced by phytoplankton (I haven't looked to see where the rest comes from) and the Pacific makes up about half the area of the world's oceans. So, in principle, this would reduce the oxygen production by 25%. Which would be pretty bad.

 

I'm have no idea what the lifetime of oxygen in the atmosphere is, so I don't know if we would all be dead in a year or if we would have centuries to try and fix the problem ...

[Ant Sinclair]

Thanks for Your reply Strange! , Again I'm no expert except in My Own field but doesn't the phytoplankton also absorb CO2? And if the phytoplankton dies, and the CO2 output continues at present levels the reulting mix of reduced O2 & and higher levels of CO2 wouldn't be very good would they??? ?

[Strange]

Thanks for Your reply Strange! , Again I'm no expert except in My Own field but doesn't the phytoplankton also absorb CO2? And if the phytoplankton dies, and the CO2 output continues at present levels the reulting mix of reduced O2 & and higher levels of CO2 wouldn't be very good would they??? ?

 

Good point. Almost certainly true.

Although I have no idea what proportion of CO2 is taken up by plankton.

 

And then you have the knock-on effects on the rest of the food chain.

[Ant Sinclair]

I've earned Myself -9 Rep points yesterday/today conversing with You Strange and I only had 8 to start with. I have three young daughters and Iam worried about their future! !!!

[pavelcherepan]

If the phytoplankton on the Pacifics' Surface All dies off, would this cause negative consequences for Man-Kind because of less Oxygen production into Earths' Atmosphere?

 

I actually think that it won't make that much of a difference. The current atmospheric O₂ levels have been established some 2.5 bya and have been quite stable ever since, even during great extinctions.

[swansont]

 

Good point. Almost certainly true.

Although I have no idea what proportion of CO2 is taken up by plankton.

 

And then you have the knock-on effects on the rest of the food chain.

 

OTOH, all of those die-offs will (eventually) reduce the removal rate of O₂.

[StringJunky]

 

...Although I have no idea what proportion of CO2 is taken up by plankton.

 

And then you have the knock-on effects on the rest of the food chain.

Phytoplankton produces between 50-85% of the world's oxygen ...how that extrapolates percentage-wise to CO₂ uptake I'm not sure.

 

If the phytoplankton on the Pacifics' Surface All dies off, would this cause negative consequences for Man-Kind because of less Oxygen production into Earths' Atmosphere?

I'll let you make your own mind up from this image of phytoplankton distribution, in green, of the Indian and Pacific Oceans combined. The red dotted line at the top is the start of the Bering Sea.

 

 

I've also posted related information in your other thread.

[Spyman]

I've earned Myself -9 Rep points yesterday/today conversing with You Strange and I only had 8 to start with. I have three young daughters and Iam worried about their future! !!!

Don't worry, if they choose to become members here when they get older, they will not inherit your reputation.

[Ant Sinclair]

Don't worry, if they choose to become members here when they get older, they will not inherit your reputation.

Have You not anything of scientific value to add? ???

In fact for making a "funny" comment you'll probably receive many reputation points!!! !

Edited March 12, 2015 by Ant Sinclair

[swansont]

Have You not anything of scientific value to add? ???

 

To your comment that was completely unrelated to science? Really? You opened the door. Don't complain when someone walks in.

[Ant Sinclair]

Are YOU not worried about Fukushima and its' on-going radioactive fall-out swansont? ???

[Strange]

Are YOU not worried about Fukushima and its' on-going radioactive fall-out swansont? ???

 

What is the connection with this thread?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The topic is not reputation, or Fukushima, it's about phytoplankton in the Pacific Ocean.

[Ant Sinclair]

Your correct phi for all, I'll start another thread concerning Fukushima and its' radioactive fall-out into the Pacific!

[Moontanman]

 

I actually think that it won't make that much of a difference. The current atmospheric O₂ levels have been established some 2.5 bya and have been quite stable ever since, even during great extinctions.

 

 

Not really true, O2 levels have fluctuated from as high as 33% during the time of giant arthropods, and the great dying was in some part attributed to much lower levels than we have today.

 

Are YOU not worried about Fukushima and its' on-going radioactive fall-out swansont? ???

 

SwansonT is correct but you might have problems with providing evidence for any assertions it is killing phytoplankton.

[MigL]

Don't mean to imply that I doubt you Moontanman. But 33 % ?

I would think at such a high percentage things would be spontaneously combusting all over the place.

I would also think small single celled life forms would have trouble surviving when exposed to such a high oxidizer concentration.

 

Do you have a source for this 33 % claim ?

I was always under the impression that anything over approx. 25% would be unsuitable for life ( as we know it ) to develop.

[Acme]

Don't mean to imply that I doubt you Moontanman. But 33 % ?

I would think at such a high percentage things would be spontaneously combusting all over the place.

I would also think small single celled life forms would have trouble surviving when exposed to such a high oxidizer concentration.

 

Do you have a source for this 33 % claim ?

I was always under the impression that anything over approx. 25% would be unsuitable for life ( as we know it ) to develop.

Did you bother to look for such a source yourself?

 

Geological history of oxygen

...Since the start of the Cambrian period, atmospheric oxygen concentrations have fluctuated between 15% and a maximum of 35% of atmospheric volume[10] towards the end of the Carboniferous period (about 300 million years ago), a peak which may have contributed to the large size of insects and amphibians at that time.[9] Whilst human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, have an impact on relative carbon dioxide concentrations, their impact on the much larger concentration of oxygen is less significant.[11] ...

[MigL]

Yes, I am familiar with that graph.

I am also familiar with reading such graphs, and note that at that specific point in time where the high estimate is 35 %, the low estimate is approx. 20 % . So why are you considering only the high estimate ?

 

I simply wish to know if Moontanman has any other references which justify the high estimate.

[Acme]

Yes, I am familiar with that graph.

I am also familiar with reading such graphs, and note that at that specific point in time where the high estimate is 35 %, the low estimate is approx. 20 % . So why are you considering only the high estimate ?

 

I simply wish to know if Moontanman has any other references which justify the high estimate.

Well Mig, I didn't cite the graph. As to references, they are at the bottom of the article page.

References

 

1. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1470/903.full.pdf

2. Zimmer, Carl (3 October 2013). "Earth’s Oxygen: A Mystery Easy to Take for Granted". New York Times. Retrieved 3 October 2013.

3. Dutkiewicz, A.; Volk, H.; George, S. C.; Ridley, J.; Buick, R. (2006). "Biomarkers from Huronian oil-bearing fluid inclusions: an uncontaminated record of life before the Great Oxidation Event". Geology 34 (6): 437. Bibcode:2006Geo....34..437D. doi:10.1130/G22360.1. edit

4. Anbar, A.; Duan, Y.; Lyons, T.; Arnold, G.; Kendall, B.; Creaser, R.; Kaufman, A.; Gordon, G.; Scott, C.; Garvin, J.; Buick, R. (2007). "A whiff of oxygen before the great oxidation event?". Science 317 (5846): 1903–1906. Bibcode:2007Sci...317.1903A. doi:10.1126/science.1140325. PMID 17901330. edit

5. Dole, M. (1965). "The Natural History of Oxygen". The Journal of General Physiology 49 (1): Suppl:Supp5–27. doi:10.1085/jgp.49.1.5. PMC 2195461. PMID 5859927. edit

6. Frei, R.; Gaucher, C.; Poulton, S. W.; Canfield, D. E. (2009). "Fluctuations in Precambrian atmospheric oxygenation recorded by chromium isotopes". Nature 461 (7261): 250–253. Bibcode:2009Natur.461..250F. doi:10.1038/nature08266. PMID 19741707. Lay summary. edit

7. Butterfield, N. J. (2007). "Macroevolution and macroecology through deep time". Palaeontology 50 (1): 41–55. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00613.x.} edit

8.Freeman, Scott (2005). Biological Science, 2nd. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson – Prentice Hall. pp. 214, 586. ISBN 0-13-140941-7.

9. Butterfield, N. J. (2009). "Oxygen, animals and oceanic ventilation: An alternative view". Geobiology 7 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4669.2009.00188.x. PMID 19200141. edit

10. Berner, R. A. (Sep 1999). "Atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time" (Free full text). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96 (20): 10955–10957. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610955B. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.20.10955. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 34224. PMID 10500106. edit

11. Emsley, John (2001). "Oxygen". Nature's Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 297–304. ISBN 0-19-850340-7.

12. J.B.S. Haldane in "On Being the Right Size" paragraph 7)

...

.

I don't understand the reticence to search for answers oneself.

 

This is the work cited for the graph: The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans

6. Stage 5: the last 0.54 Gyr

 

The level of atmospheric O2 has probably varied significantly during the Phanerozoic. Improvements in computation schemes from BLAG to SUPERBLAG to GEOCARB to BROD have increased the believability of the results, but additional direct confirmation of the calculated O2 levels is still needed. The most recent computations (Berner 2004) indicate that atmospheric O2 may have attained values as high as 0.35 atm during the PermoCarboniferous (figure 10). This result agrees with the isotopic composition of PermoCarboniferous fossil plants, the effect of O2 on photosynthetic carbon isotope fractionation during plant growth, and the development of giant insects during this period of Earth history (Graham et al. 1995; Dudley 1998; Lane 2002). The principal cause of the proposed high O2 levels was probably the evolution of the large vascular land plants that brought about increased O2 production and increased O2 levels due to the enhanced global burial of microbially resistant, lignin-rich organic matter during the PermoCarboniferous (Berner 2004). The surface oceans must have been oxygenated throughout the Phanerozoic, but the oxidation state of the deeper oceans has fluctuated widely. The Cretaceous oceanic anoxic events (OAEs) are particularly well documented (Arthur et al. 1985). They coincided with rising sea level and warm, generally stably stratified oceans. The mechanisms that induced widespread deposition of organic carbon-rich sediments involved some combination of elevated biologic productivity and enhanced organic carbon preservation under oxygen-depleted water masses (Arthur 2005). ...

Brother Moontan, by all means add your own references as you please.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Acme

[Ant Sinclair]

http://www.thegeocentricgnostic.com/?p=3277

 

What's going on??? C

[Strange]

What's going on??? C

 

 

Some insane people posted some insane nonsense.

[Moontanman]

Don't mean to imply that I doubt you Moontanman. But 33 % ?

I would think at such a high percentage things would be spontaneously combusting all over the place.

I would also think small single celled life forms would have trouble surviving when exposed to such a high oxidizer concentration.

 

Do you have a source for this 33 % claim ?

I was always under the impression that anything over approx. 25% would be unsuitable for life ( as we know it ) to develop.

 

 

I am sorry I missed the replies to my post in this thread, fires were indeed thought to have been a problem at the time of oxygen maximum. Also anaerobic organisms did indeed have problems when atmospheric began to rise. I am not sure why a higher oxygen level would be a problem for oxygen using organisms unicellular or multicellular.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

 

 

 

Terrestrial life was well established by the Carboniferous period.^[11] Amphibians were the dominant land vertebrates, of which one branch would eventually evolve into reptiles, the first fully terrestrial vertebrates. Arthropods were also very common, and many (such as Meganeura) were much larger than those of today. Vast swaths of forest covered the land, which would eventually be laid down and become the coal beds characteristic of the Carboniferous system. The atmospheric content of oxygen also reached their highest levels in geological history during the period, 35%^[12]compared with 21% today. This increased the atmospheric density by a third over today’s value.^[12] A major marine and terrestrial extinction event occurred in the middle of the period, caused by a change in climate.^[13] The later half of the period experienced glaciations, low sea level, and mountain building as the continents collided to form Pangaea.

http://www.thegeocentricgnostic.com/?p=3277

 

What's going on??? C

 

 

Are you trying to say that the death of this scientist had something to do with the pacific ocean? With Fukushima? The amount of radiation released by Fukushima is killing plankton? You have me confused, you do realise that orders of magnitude more radiation was released by atomic bomb tests in the 20th century right?