r/theydidthemath • u/albertau2k • 19h ago
[Request] Will there be too much oxygen to live when there are billions of trees?
163
u/joting2b 18h ago
If you mean if there were only a billion trees on Earth, then there would actually be less oxygen because on Earth there are currently 3.4 trillion and in turn, an addition of a billion trees would not provide any meaningful increase.
42
132
u/Own_Employment_3866 19h ago
Trees dont make as much oxygen as people think, it's mainly the oceans that do that. An earth covered with trees wouldnt meaningfully affect the percentage of oxygen in the air.
15
u/mkujoe 18h ago
How do oceans create oxygen
91
u/whamburglar 18h ago
It's not the ocean itself. It's the things like phytoplankton and algae that make it through photosynthesis. More microscopic microorganisms than trees.
10
u/mkujoe 18h ago
Then the oxygen bubbles up?
51
u/Mind_on_Idle 18h ago
Diffused into the water and released through escape or evaporaton. Or released directly to the air if it's a surface organism, which many are because photosynthesis becomes much less viable and specialized the deeper you go.
So, sure! Tiny, tiny bubbles
12
u/fluggggg 17h ago
You have an infinetisimaly small amount of aquatic plants (relatively to the total mass of aquatic plants) who are well known for "pearling", the formation of visible oxygen bubbles on or under their leaves, letting a signature column of bubbles rise to the surface.
Especially known and used in aquariums for aesthetic purpose.
For those ones that would just be tiny bubbles.
10
u/JoshuaFalken1 18h ago
It mostly gets absorbed into the water. Sea life needs oxygen in their water to survive, but a lot of the oxygen that is produced diffuses into the atmosphere from the oxygen rich waters near the surface
4
u/henryeaterofpies 18h ago
The ocean is also a giant CO2 sink, which also causes problem because it is becoming saturated.
2
u/azflatlander 16h ago
That is a basic statement.
3
2
2
1
u/bangkokcouch 11h ago
When a mommy ocean and daddy ocean love each other enough, they wrestle for thirty seconds and 9 months later oxygen is born! Science 😄
4
4
u/JoshuaFalken1 18h ago
It would sequester a shit load of carbon and make huge strides in counteracting some of the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change.
That said, with the average person responsible for 4-5 tons of carbon emissions per year, and a tree only absorbing ~25 kgs per year, we would need trillions of trees planted every year to completely offset just the new emissions, let alone achieving net absorption.
1
u/Riemann_Gauss 9h ago
the average person responsible for 4-5 tons of carbon emissions per year..
Average as in 'mean' or 'median'? Can you please provide a source? It seems unbelievable that an average person emits so much CO2
2
u/JoshuaFalken1 8h ago
0
u/Riemann_Gauss 5h ago
Per capita emissions is not same as "an average person" emits such an amount.
1
1
u/kamill85 16h ago
That's false AF. Sure, fully grown trees "don't make oxygen". But the growth stage takes all the carbon from CO₂ and releases the free oxygen. That's how trees gain biomass (not from the soil).
You'd lock up roughly 700-1,000 GtC, which is more carbon than humanity has ever emitted. But atmospheric CO₂ wouldn't drop by the full amount - the ocean would give back most of what the trees took. Realistic landing point is somewhere around 250-280 ppm, below pre-industrial. That is, if we planted trees on all land wherever there are no trees, currently.
0
u/Own_Employment_3866 15h ago
yea but he's asking about oxygen not CO2. While trees do release oxygen into the atmosphere during the day, they also consume it during the night to stay alive. So oxygen levels wouldnt really change.
1
u/kamill85 4h ago
CO2 = Carbon-Oxygen-Oxygen. When trees grow, they massively consume the Carbon component of the CO2, leaving only O2 behind, which gets released.
This is how trees grow. 99% of dry (water excluded) biomass of the tree is Carbon taken out from the Air/CO2.
If there was suddenly this many trees growing, it would take us to pre-industrial CO2 levels. All the "used" CO2 would be turned into O2, therefore massively increasing free oxygen levels in the air.
Is it easier to understand now?
0
1
u/Acceptable_Music556 15h ago
But it would act as a carbon sink, reducing CO2 concentration in the air, which is a bigger issue.
1
21
u/turbulentFireStarter 18h ago
Here is your friendly reminder that you don’t need to rely on for-profit corporations to be moral leaders in our community. You are capable of planting a tree in your backyard too.
-a farmer who manages a cares for 40 acres of this beautiful earth and who takes his responsibility to the world and his community seriously
2
13
u/Traditional-Bike7825 18h ago
I was going to say with that many trees there might not be enough carbon dioxide for them all... but a lot of guys are going to be breathing heavier... just a note to help those heros doing the calculation lol
7
u/Wjyosn 17h ago
We already have trillions. Trees outnumber humans almost 1000:1 already. Your scale is off. https://www.science.org/content/article/earth-home-3-trillion-trees-half-many-when-human-civilization-arose
But yes, we would have some interesting problems if we had quintillions of trees. I'm not sure "too much oxygen" is the problem though. They'll run into a shortage of CO2 at some point and likely some species that respirate oxygen will also bloom and fight that over-run earlier than the point of too much O2
4
u/JellyBellyBitches 15h ago
All of these promises to plant trees... Is anybody in charge of taking care of those trees and making sure they actually grow into adults and are safe from further deforestation or something? Cuz it doesn't do any good to plant a billion trees and plow them all down the next year to put up condos
2
u/kamill85 15h ago
Fully grown trees "don't make oxygen". But the growth stage takes all the carbon from CO₂ and releases the free oxygen. That's how trees gain biomass (not from the soil).
You'd lock up roughly 700-1,000 GtC, which is more carbon than humanity has ever emitted. But atmospheric CO₂ wouldn't drop by the full amount - the ocean would give back most of what the trees took. Realistic landing point is somewhere around 250-280 ppm, below pre-industrial.
That is, if we planted trees on all land wherever there are no trees, currently.
1
u/djheroboy 12h ago
Just out of interest, can anyone shed some light on how much oxygen is too much? Oxygen binds to hemoglobin in blood, and normal OSAT readings are around 95-100%, and you can’t really go over 100%
1
u/MattTheTubaGuy 8h ago
No.
Oxygen makes up about 21% of the atmosphere.
Carbon Dioxide makes up about 0.004% of the atmosphere.
Even if all of the Carbon Dioxide was converted to Oxygen by trees, the increase in oxygen would be barely noticeable. The reduction in Carbon Dioxide though would be catastrophic.
The same applies the other way around. If Carbon Dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, dangerous levels will be reached way before the Oxygen decreases enough to have any sort of impact.
1
u/TheQuestionMaster8 4h ago
No, because the more trees there are the more bacteria there will be that breaks them down and they also consume oxygen. Some of the excess oxygen would also dissolve in the Ocean or be consumed by wildfires. There are also several trillion trees on Earth. A few billion extra won’t make that much of a difference.
•
u/AutoModerator 19h ago
General Discussion Thread
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you must post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.