Oxygen

[ModernArtist25]

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 July 31, 2016 by ModernArtist25

[John Cuthber]

Most bacteria don't produce oxygen.

Many consume it.

[StringJunky]

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 July 31, 2016 by StringJunky

[Prometheus]

...the phytoplankton production should cover the loss from trees being destroyed...

 

If only the phytoplankton population hadn't halved in the last half century.

[StringJunky]

If only the phytoplankton population hadn't halved in the last half century.

Yeah, they don't like warming seas.

[John Cuthber]

The dead trees would almost certainly burn.

[StringJunky]

The dead trees would almost certainly burn.

Caused by...?

[John Cuthber]

Caused by...?

A flash of lightning; man's stupidity - take your pick.

However the outcome is a removal of oxygen from the air.

[StringJunky]

A flash of lightning; man's stupidity - take your pick.

However the outcome is a removal of oxygen from the air.

You think it would push it to unsurvivable levels?

[DrmDoc]

Pant...pant...pant...you guys are making it hard for me to breathe ​

[John Cuthber]

You think it would push it to unsurvivable levels?

It's another factor that wouldn't help.

[smhjn17]

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

[StringJunky]

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?

[Carrock]

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!

[StringJunky]

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?

[Carrock]

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.

[StringJunky]

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

[CharonY]

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).

[StringJunky]

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

I was wondering about them but didn't think they were strictly phytoplankton. I know they were probably the first photosynthetic organisms. I stand corrected.

[dimreepr]

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.

[StringJunky]

 

 

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.

[dimreepr]

My point is, when does a plant become a tree?

 

 

Life would continue but not as we know it.

 

 

 

Indeed but that's not the question.

Edited August 8, 2016 by dimreepr

[StringJunky]

My point is, when does a plant become a tree?

When depends if you are an ant or a giraffe

[dimreepr]

That's no less arbitrary.

[StringJunky]

That's no less arbitrary.

And therein lies the answer.