It is widely assumed that trees were mostly responsible for maintaining the quality of air that permits life on earth to exist as we know it. At least, that's what I had believed until a while back. But if you've ever heard that the oceans absorb so many thousands of tons of CO2 a year, you may have wondered what organism is at play which accomplishes this. The truth is that algae- not trees- are mostly responsible for converting CO2 to O2.
Now, the average tree absorbs about 48 pounds of CO2 per year. A simple "CO2 scrubber" made from a culture of algae in a two-litter body of water, if maintained properly, absorbs approximately 24 pounds of CO2 per year.
This means that four liters of water accomplishes the same amount of work as a tree in the same time.
Now, it's at this time that we should start considering various factors here in order to calculate exactly how much of a role algae plays in maintaining your atmosphere.
First off, let's just keep in mind how fast algae grows, and how easily it spreads. We have to take measures to keep it out of our pools. How does algae start growing in our pools, anyway? For anyone who doesn't know, there are algae spores in the air which fertilize open bodies of water.
Now, you may be thinking, "the ocean takes up two thirds of our planet's surface area. How much work are our oceans actually getting done?" Well, we must keep in mind two main factors which we can use to "round down" the effectiveness of ocean algae- by far the biggest factor in keeping our atmosphere clean. Firstly, algae can really only grow around the equator, where it's warm.
Secondly, sunlight- the principal fuel for all plant life- only penetrates about 1,000 metres (of 3,280 feet). Though, we must also keep in mind that algae, once formed on the surface, will block sunlight from passing through to the water below.
Ironic how you never hear people banter and protest about algae specifically, but you always hear things like "save the trees" and whatnot.
It is widely assumed that trees were mostly responsible for maintaining the quality of air that permits life on earth...
Other urls found in this thread:
cancerfightingstrategies.com
twitter.com
If we're talking about the atmosphere and CO2 levels, we don't even need trees. Algae at its current levels already does at least two-thirds of the world's work in maintaining this balance.
Now, I for one have never been one to worry about the environment. At least, never to the point of misanthropy (which is a running theme within environmental propaganda). In fact, I don't even think our world's in any real danger as it is, nor is it on its way to becoming one in this manner. I do, however, understand that there are serious benefits to increasing the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. I should note as of now that I'm not sure whether or not CO2 is really a "problem-causer" as it's told to be. We actually need to breathe CO2 as much as we do oxygen in order to perform correctly.
cool story bro
Why do I never hear anyone talking about this? Just think about it. Think about how easy we could harness the potential of our brains and bodies by increasing the oxygen levels in our atmosphere. For those of you who are "worried" about our co2 levels, isn't this an easy fix? Has this even crossed anyone's mind? Please, I invited anyone here to find a flaw that negates at least giving this a try. It can be done on the domestic scale, without the need for government knowledge or intervention. It's the perfect project. People's emotional states would be healthier. Their psyches would be fortified. I've yet to see how our whole "save the trees" plan is anywhere as economic as this one. Look at it this way, even if you don't believe any of this, doesn't it at least sound convincing enough to hook the environmentalists into not wasting our fucking tax dollars left and right? The idea in and of itself mitigates economic problems even if it has to effect on the atmosphere.
people don't actually talk about serious topics anymore
we are to busy wanting/looking/hunting for the next Viral bullshit topic
I think wilderness is the only thing on this earth I would take up arms to defend. I don't want to live in a forest of 4l algae scrubbers
>Think about how easy we could harness the potential of our brains and bodies by increasing the oxygen levels in our atmosphere.
That's not how it works. More O2 doesn't equal smarter people/more brainpower. Your brain is always using 100% of the O2 it can.
Thank you for taking the time to post this OP, and while I do not have anything of substance to add, I just wanted to say it was a nice read.
>We actually need to breathe CO2
STOPPED READING THERE
well, even if I was wrong about that, what are the downsides? There are at least a handful of proven benefits from breathing oxygen-enriched air. Besides, what about the future our children grow up in? I don't want it to become one of those "environmentalist utopias" where everyone's starved for nature's sake. Isn't this an easy fix for that?
That's completely backwards. Forests and wild animals are useless to us. Maybe keep a few of them to remind the people of the future what once was, but I think it's time to start chopping some wood, I got a sauna to heat up. The faster we make the planet ours, the faster we can start doing it to other planets. And maybe building planets too. Have you guys no pride in being a human?
>Thank you for taking the time to post this OP, and while I do not have anything of substance to add, I just wanted to say it was a nice read.
fuckin worth it
That's at the very end, Tyrone Novák
There is no downside, except the time and materials that you have to invest in it, which is in the long run nearly zero. I remeber to read about algaefarms for mars missions and inner city air management for China. Also there is moss, which can be used as airfilter.
I don’t think algae is mostly responsible for this phenomena. Ocean acidification is.
You're about to lose all forests and animals in your country anyways, let me know what that's like.
Incresed oxygen leads to increased oxidation leads to increased cell respiration & fermentation. Cancer rates would spike because many people are in a state of health where they need more CO2 and less oxygen. People living in the mountains tend to be very healthy because in the oxygen-diminished air there is no possibility of hyperventilating yourself into diseases that require strong oxidation.
The Ocean dispenses more CO2 than it takes in silly goys
Hi user I'm the guy that told ya about the forest CO2 sink fallacy.
I'm proud, keep doing you bro.
It's plankton you damn idiots, not algae, pretty sure algae absorbs all the oxygen in the water.
Whoops I saw that as a Greek flag.
Fermentation doesn’t require oxygen. Just NAD or NADP, sugar and ADP. Could you explain to me how increased oxygen levels would increase the probability pf cancer? I have never heard of that before
>plankton
Most freshwater phytoplankton are made up of green algae and cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae. Marine phytoplankton are mainly comprised of microalgae known as dinoflagellates and diatoms, though other algae and cyanobacteria can be present.
Microbiology is a literal cluster fuck,generally algae implies all of these forms.
Are you suggesting we'd actually oversaturate our atomsphere with oxygen? We'd be lucky to bring it back to what it was 30 years ago. You're as stupid as they come
Holy shit. That never even crossed my mind. I'm reading around on this right now. Got any specific good scientific articles you can share?
Now I'm actually glad I made this post. Funny how you find answers when you go looking. Law of attraction, huh?
kk, my mistake.
I have still read that green algae in fresh water lakes kills fish because it de-oxygenates the water.
You know, one of the potential fixes for the planet heating up is to dump iron into the ocean causing the plankton to mass replicate meaning more co2 -> oxygen.
Then according to your theory we should have massive out gassing from the oceans after a slight upswing in temp.
You forget coral and shell formation, also limestone formation in the oceans.
Why are you posting this on Jow Forums?
I can't direct my rage towards this.
>increasing oxygen means your body uses more oxygen.
Why?
Pretty sure cell oxygen rates are fixed, we would just have to breath less often.
Well it's probably bullshit, just synthesizing various things I remember reading. You seem to know more.
not that user, sorry. I was inspired to look into this by my cousin. First time posting about this here. I'm interested in whatever you got on that forest sink fallacy, though. DuckDuckGo isn't bringing anything up.
Enlighten me user.
No, no. The algae produces lots of oxygen when its alive, but when it dies and decays the micro-organisms that consume it use that oxygen and produce co2.
If youve ever heard of ocean dead zones, thats what happens when lots of fertilizer runoff gets into the ocean causing an algae bloom. The end result being the water is so deoxygenated when the algae does that not even fish can live there. Also some algaes produce toxins and when grown in large amounts can kill lots of fish look up red tide
What do you mean by outgassing? The whole process is stabilized through the bicarbonate buffer system
I don't believe in AGW, but I have no problem with you guys trying to kill all life, in fact I'll help because I understand the science and people are idiots.
The last time we had a nearly 100% CO2 depleted atmosphere 700 million years ago, the Earth was frozen solid pole to pole.
That's the goal right? Because flowing water is the enemy or something?
Here's something for you to try to find.
The current accurate CO2 concentration and the CO2 in which plants and algae die. I know what they are but the search itself teaches you way more, because it's so heavily buried.
that sounds pretty dope. Imagine being able to hold your breath for four minutes minimum. Sounds like we'd all have more stamina. Probably better focus and less ADHD, too.
Direct your rage someplace else loser.
I just now realized, wouldn't our lifespans be severely compromised if we increased oxygen levels? Isn't that what growing up is? Mass oxidation of cells over a long period of time? Then again, I might be completely wrong in that because I remember learning that the "wear and tear" effect our bodies go through as we become old and wrinkly is the result of genes not copying themselves probably as cells divide. Which an increase in oxygen levels might actually help in them doing.
There's no rage, it's science.
Let's "fix" the Earth that we CLEARLY have ruined.
>algae can really only grow around the equator, where it's warm.
we can't swim here since there's so much algae
Nah man nah, Gore sent me to help "the cause".
Whats interesting is I stumbled upon an article that says that increasing oxygen would actually kill cancerous cells
What you are all missing in this thread is that o2 and co2 exists in a cycle. When plants grow they turn co2 into o2 and when they die it reverts back into co2.
Algae doesn't live very long and all the carbon it absorbs is released when it dies after just a few weeks or however long it lives. If the algae is grown in unsustainable amounts it can have very negative consequences like I stated here Trees, on the other hand live for a long time and can store massive amounts of carbon in its wood. Grass, when managed properly can also store huge amounts of carbon in its roots and in the soil. If plants that store carbon are grown in large enough quantities they can keep carbon out of the atmosphere (not that this is necessarily a good thing, carbon is very important for all life).
Algae on the other hand does not have a method to store carbon and its lifecycle is very short, thus having little effect on the overall amounts of carbon and oxygen in the atmosphere over the long term.
No, you're like a shrieking middle aged woman who hears the word "retardant" and assume the material makes people retarded, and therefore wants to ban it.
Oxidation of living cells has almost nothing to do with how much oxygen they receive from breathing. Dumb.
>tfw you accidentally become a disinformation agent
If the oceans hold CO2 dissolved in it, then temperature increases cause it to come out of solution, Think of a warm carbonated soda, not much carbonation for long.
If there's any temperature changes as many claim wouldn't an increase dwarf whatever CO2 output that humanity might have?
Also: pic
The atmosphere is 1/3 O2
.038% CO2.
What cycle? There's more atmospheric Argon on Earth than CO2.
>What cycle?
This one dumbass
>When plants grow they turn co2 into o2 >when they die it reverts back into co2.
This. Algae returns CO2 faster while trees sequester it for decades and centuries in wood, much of which becomes dirt
Didnt one of those Mars movies plots involve terraforming via algae spread?
The concept was always fascinating.
No I'm implying it's off balance.
During the Cambrian period when CO2 concentrations were highest since the elvolution of photosynthesizing organisms, we had the largest explosion of animal life ever recorded in geological history, environment divesification is a good part of it, however with a CO2 concentration of 5%, one cannot dent that the food chain would have been VERY stout.
You are right. Increasing temperature increases kinetic energy of co2. Perhaps the temperatures aren’t changing as fast are people think.
Mars has a few problems, Not enough magnetism to stop solar rays, no ozone to stop cosmic rays, low gravity, and no volcanism to supply an atmosphere.
There are ways of turning Mars into a nice planet, but it would be quicker if we just slammed the asteroid belt into it then tried to terraform it after that.
But couldn't you at least sort of bypass this if you, say for the sake of the argument, kept a container of water in which you grew algae and dumped however much of it into a hole in the ground when it became too algae-dense so as to dump the "dead algae water" in into said hole, after-which you just filled the container the rest of the way with water and nutrients so that the cycle could continue?
Also, not even sure if what you're saying is even partially true because a two-liter container only needs to be cleaned at most half-a-year and still scrubs what it does from the atmosphere. Which of course suggests that all of that mass should be in the container. Which it isn't. Algae is like an input-output machine, rather. Once which outputs more oxygen over its lifetime that co2.
Also, if what you say is true then where do you store all of the oxygen/co2 that you've inhaled? Does it come out in the form of excrement? Or do we perhaps act to our atmosphere as machines which breath in o2 and co2 and output them in different amounts? Keep in mind that sunlight also plays a factor to algae.
Perhaps the oceans are a dumping ground for CO2 and not allowing any CO2 sources might be bad for Earth?
The ocean is a natural CO2 sink. CO2 sources are here to stay... Whats your point?
You need both, without one you get an ice age.
Yup I agree
I agree, more CO2 is good for plant life and thus animals. What I'm saying is that trees can hold this carbon for very long periods of time unlike algae, which I mentioned is not inherently a good thing. The OP was trying to say how less trees and more algae would clean the atmosphere. This is false in the sense that algae will not remove carbon dioxide for extended periods of time, the results of which would be irrelevant because CO2 is not a pollutant.
You forget one of the previous posts, see There are other process at play to, limestone[Ca(CO3)] is created how again?
If you put your dead algae in a hole the co2 will still dissapate into the atmosphere unless you put it under enough pressure, then it will have been preserved similar to ""fossil fuels""" like oil, coal.
Yes you are correct algae is a more efficient photosynthesizer than trees, probably because it always has access to water, but while tree can store carbon in its trunk, the dead algae's carbon either enters the atmosphere or is hekd in the water. The ability for water to hold carbon is proportional to the temperature, like cold soda hold its fizz longer. If the earth is hot, it woukd nit be practical to store carbon in the ocean (although I dont know why you would want to store carbon, its invaluable to life)
>Also, if what you say is true then where do you store all of the oxygen/co2 that you've inhaled?
I am not a plant I dont need to store co2 except in my fat. I consume glucose from plants or lipids from animals that ate plants which my body breaks down using oxygen that I breathe in from the air. The carbon from the food attaches to the oxygen which I breathe out (not shit out) which is then used by plants to produce glucose and oxygen. And thus the cycle continues. It been an honor to study with you user. You're really gonna have to know this basic biology when you go into 9th grade this year.
I like where you’re going, but there technically are downsides to oxygen. Oxygen itself is a harsh element, even if we require it; it’s basically a poison that degrades cells.
You’ve heard about anti-oxidants? Shit in (((organic))) food to make your cells not be shitty. You’ve heard of ocidation before. It’s the result of oxygen degrading things.
Nobldy thinks that outside Hick Town USA
op is a retarded american
Greenfags are idiots, but trees hold more utility than just CO2 scrubbing:
>holding water in the soil
>curbing landslide-conductive erosion
>cooling the surrounding area
>breaking winds
Extra oxygen is detrimental.
This is very interesting. But doesn't the algae just respire the CO2 when it dies? A tree sequesters Co2 in its biomass, which will take a good long time to die and decay. But the rotten tree WILL give up its CO2 eventually. Wouldnt algae do the same thing, faster?
I have heard of harvesting biolfuels from algae tanks. Cool, but again the CO2 is surrendered when the fuel is burned.
Blue green algae is toxic you fucknut