6 ms·

Don't forget that the permafrost is thawing and it's starting to release massive amounts of CO2, much more than previously thought. The thawing is releasing ma

Don't forget that the permafrost is thawing and it's starting to release massive amounts of CO2, much more than previously thought. The thawing is releasing massive amounts of Methane, and Nitrous Oxide which are far more impactful than CO2. Due to warming temperatures more ice is melting and it's raising the temperature of the oceans and it's causing them to be more acidic, both of which is bad for phytoplankton populations, which have already declined steeply. Phytoplankton is the basis for the entire marine ecosystem. Like most collapses, a declines happen gradually then suddenly it crashes, my fear is that the phytoplankton population will crash soon, and when it does we're in deep trouble. 20% of the atmosphere's oxygen comes from phytoplankton, more than all the world's rain forests combined. The ocean is responsible for somewhere between 50-80% of the atmosphere's oxygen, there is no telling what happens when the phytoplankton population crashes. We could see a huge drop in oxygen levels in the atmosphere very quickly. 30% of the world's population relies on the oceans for their primary source of protein, and about the same number of people rely on the marine ecosystem for their livelihood, when the phytoplankton population crashes, those people will be in serious, serious trouble. Reducing our carbon output isn't enough, slowing an increase still means we are increasing concentration levels, we need to be removing more than we are releasing, and I don't see any possible way to achieve that with any known technology. I don't think we can stop, or even slow what we've started. The earth is now seeking it's new equilibrium state, it's hard to say if we are part of that equilibrium state.

rayiner 6y ago
The permafrost tipping point theory is not accepted science: https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-of-no-return-paper-ev-1845667916 https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-... Also, oxygen levels would not drop rapidly. It would take millions of years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazon-fires-do-not-threaten-earths-oxygen-expert-says/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazo...
- Diederich 6y ago
  Correct, it's not currently widely accepted. In many ways, science is more 'conservative' than so-called 'conservative' political parties, which is probably a good thing. However, there's a lot of emerging that supports the concept that there will be a large amount of methane release from the arctic over the next few decades. Very large. If this happens, and I truly hope it does not, then the impact will be enormous and devastating. While such a release isn't sure, the combination of possibility and impact is more than enough for us to deeply consider it during policy considerations.
flyGuyOnTheSly 6y ago
I too thought that we need the oceans and trees etc to breath... And then this article blew my mind wide open. [0] I am definitely not advocating for the destruction of our ecosystems or cheering on their decline, just thought this was a great article. tl;dr we do not rely on photosynthesis or any active living thing to produce the oxygen that we breath. It in fact mostly comes from decay/death. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-f...
- bluegrownlife 6y ago
  Great article, and glad you brought this up. Just want to expand on the "decay/death" since it's referred to in 2 different ways in the article: 1) The decay/death of photosynthesizing organisms feed carbon to non-photosynthesizing organisms (ex: humans) and essentially neutralizes any net gain in atmospheric O2. Therefore the typical lifecycle of trees/phytoplankton doesn't add more O2 to the atmosphere than the current level. 2) In the rare instance that the decay/death of phytoplankton is quickly buried underground (ex: deep-sea mud), there is a net gain in atmospheric O2. Over the course of millions years, this process has led to ~21% atmospheric O2. So, everyday decay/death of life doesn't "produce" O2 in the way photosynthesis does, but it does when photosynthesizing organisms get buried underground.
soperj 6y ago
We know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Why do you think that Phytoplankton population will crash when they didn't in the past?
- j-pb 6y ago
  In the past these things have been slow gadual processes taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. The phytoplankton back adapted to the high acidity. The phytoplankton we have today evolved to fit our current acidity. They are two entirely distinct sets of species that evolved to optimally adapt to the conditions of their time. But now we're changing the acidity of the oceans at a much faster pace. In a matter of years, not millennia. The plankton does not have the time to adapt to these conditions and will thus die. Just like we've already seen in coral reefs. The population will rebound eventually, but that again, will probably take millennia.
  - soperj 6y ago
    >In the past these things have been slow gadual processes taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. How is that actually true, but at the same time the melting of the permafrost will result in very large releases of CO2, NO and Methane? One of these must be false. Phytoplankton also live for very short periods of time, no more than a few days, they would likely adapt more readily to change than longer lived organisms.
    - j-pb 6y ago
      Even with the high reproduction rate, even 100 years with lower oxygen levels would be devastating. Also, the gases in permafrost accumulated of milennia of decay processes. So I don't get your point.
      - soperj 6y ago
        The point is that if there is a trigger that releases them that will cause devastating knock on global warming, that will have also occurred in the past, and it's not a slow gradual process that life has millions of years to adapt to.
gizmo686 6y ago
Is there a difference between a drop in oxygen levels and a rise in CO2 levels? My understanding of the oxygen cycle is that O2 gets removed from the atmosphere by being bound to carbon in CO2. Further, since most of the oxygen is O2, while most of the carbon is currently biomass; any notable drop in O2 levels would be a disasterous rise in CO2 levels. Specifically, O2 is about 200,000 ppm, while CO2 is about 400ppm. As I understand it, a 1% drop in O2 levels would put us at about 2,400 ppm of CO2; at which point we are looking at significant cognitive decline; and I don't even know how to speculate on the grean house effect. On the other hand, climbing to the top of the eifel tower (1000 ft) corresponds to a drop of about 4% in the partial pressure of oxygen.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  > Is there a difference between a drop in oxygen levels and a rise in CO2 levels? Yes. These are two independent gases in the atmosphere. A drop in one does not equate automatically to an increase in the other. There's a process involved in converting carbon to CO2. To make CO2 levels rise by 6x, the process of converting would need to be running at 6x too. The entire of human industry over ~100 years has contributed to increasing CO2 levels by 1x (so doubling them). So we're not in any imminent danger of 6x.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Oxygen is also removed by reaction with other reducing species, like sulfide and ferrous iron. And of course in reaction with organic matter water is produced also, not just CO2.
imglorp 6y ago
There are also ocean floor methane klathrates. As the water warms those will also release vast amounts.
- anonuser123456 6y ago
  Oceanic clathrate release is not projected under even the worst warming estimates. The timeline for oceanic clathrate release is measured in thousands of years.

rayiner 6y ago

The permafrost tipping point theory is not accepted science: https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-of-no-return-paper-ev-1845667916 https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-scientists-debunk-point-... Also, oxygen levels would not drop rapidly. It would take millions of years: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazon-fires-do-not-threaten-earths-oxygen-expert-says/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/destructive-amazo...

Diederich 6y ago
Correct, it's not currently widely accepted. In many ways, science is more 'conservative' than so-called 'conservative' political parties, which is probably a good thing. However, there's a lot of emerging that supports the concept that there will be a large amount of methane release from the arctic over the next few decades. Very large. If this happens, and I truly hope it does not, then the impact will be enormous and devastating. While such a release isn't sure, the combination of possibility and impact is more than enough for us to deeply consider it during policy considerations.

flyGuyOnTheSly 6y ago

I too thought that we need the oceans and trees etc to breath... And then this article blew my mind wide open. [0] I am definitely not advocating for the destruction of our ecosystems or cheering on their decline, just thought this was a great article. tl;dr we do not rely on photosynthesis or any active living thing to produce the oxygen that we breath. It in fact mostly comes from decay/death. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-f...

bluegrownlife 6y ago
Great article, and glad you brought this up. Just want to expand on the "decay/death" since it's referred to in 2 different ways in the article: 1) The decay/death of photosynthesizing organisms feed carbon to non-photosynthesizing organisms (ex: humans) and essentially neutralizes any net gain in atmospheric O2. Therefore the typical lifecycle of trees/phytoplankton doesn't add more O2 to the atmosphere than the current level. 2) In the rare instance that the decay/death of phytoplankton is quickly buried underground (ex: deep-sea mud), there is a net gain in atmospheric O2. Over the course of millions years, this process has led to ~21% atmospheric O2. So, everyday decay/death of life doesn't "produce" O2 in the way photosynthesis does, but it does when photosynthesizing organisms get buried underground.

soperj 6y ago

We know that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Why do you think that Phytoplankton population will crash when they didn't in the past?

j-pb 6y ago
In the past these things have been slow gadual processes taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. The phytoplankton back adapted to the high acidity. The phytoplankton we have today evolved to fit our current acidity. They are two entirely distinct sets of species that evolved to optimally adapt to the conditions of their time. But now we're changing the acidity of the oceans at a much faster pace. In a matter of years, not millennia. The plankton does not have the time to adapt to these conditions and will thus die. Just like we've already seen in coral reefs. The population will rebound eventually, but that again, will probably take millennia.
- soperj 6y ago
  >In the past these things have been slow gadual processes taking hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. How is that actually true, but at the same time the melting of the permafrost will result in very large releases of CO2, NO and Methane? One of these must be false. Phytoplankton also live for very short periods of time, no more than a few days, they would likely adapt more readily to change than longer lived organisms.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    Even with the high reproduction rate, even 100 years with lower oxygen levels would be devastating. Also, the gases in permafrost accumulated of milennia of decay processes. So I don't get your point.
    - soperj 6y ago
      The point is that if there is a trigger that releases them that will cause devastating knock on global warming, that will have also occurred in the past, and it's not a slow gradual process that life has millions of years to adapt to.

gizmo686 6y ago

Is there a difference between a drop in oxygen levels and a rise in CO2 levels? My understanding of the oxygen cycle is that O2 gets removed from the atmosphere by being bound to carbon in CO2. Further, since most of the oxygen is O2, while most of the carbon is currently biomass; any notable drop in O2 levels would be a disasterous rise in CO2 levels. Specifically, O2 is about 200,000 ppm, while CO2 is about 400ppm. As I understand it, a 1% drop in O2 levels would put us at about 2,400 ppm of CO2; at which point we are looking at significant cognitive decline; and I don't even know how to speculate on the grean house effect. On the other hand, climbing to the top of the eifel tower (1000 ft) corresponds to a drop of about 4% in the partial pressure of oxygen.

marcus_holmes 6y ago
> Is there a difference between a drop in oxygen levels and a rise in CO2 levels? Yes. These are two independent gases in the atmosphere. A drop in one does not equate automatically to an increase in the other. There's a process involved in converting carbon to CO2. To make CO2 levels rise by 6x, the process of converting would need to be running at 6x too. The entire of human industry over ~100 years has contributed to increasing CO2 levels by 1x (so doubling them). So we're not in any imminent danger of 6x.
pfdietz 6y ago
Oxygen is also removed by reaction with other reducing species, like sulfide and ferrous iron. And of course in reaction with organic matter water is produced also, not just CO2.

imglorp 6y ago

There are also ocean floor methane klathrates. As the water warms those will also release vast amounts.

anonuser123456 6y ago
Oceanic clathrate release is not projected under even the worst warming estimates. The timeline for oceanic clathrate release is measured in thousands of years.