[EB66]

> The problem is I feel that he has confused understanding of the subject here rather than clarifying it, which is an easy thing for anybody to do in a conversational article.

I couldn't agree more. A bunch of people are coming away from reading that article believing that forests have no impact on global carbon sequestration and oxygen production. In attempting to make a contrarian technical point and refute mass media figures, the author has done a disservice to furthering public understanding of the issue.

Sure, a mature forest can come into equilibrium with regard to carbon/oxygen production and consumption. A forest could even be a net contributor of atmospheric carbon by means of an insect or fungus overpopulation. However:

1. Studies show that's not true for the Amazon rainforest (annually it is still a carbon sink).

2. Over the lifetime of the forest the effect is clearly a massive gain in oxygen and massive sequestration of carbon as evidenced by all the biomass (e.g., trees) and dirt you find in forests.

[shkkmo]

> A bunch of people are coming away from reading that article believing that forests have no impact on global carbon sequestration and oxygen production.

If you were really concerned about people misunderstanding the article, you would not make up claims and attribute them to the author. Instead you would quote the relevant parts of the article to demonstrate what is actually being said.

The author in no way claims that the Amazon is in equilibrium, (probably because as one of the foremost global experts on rainforest carbon cycles, he knows it isn't.)

Edit:

The claims are quite specific:

1) The amazon provides ~9% of the global O2 production.

2) The amazon consumes most of the O2 it produces through tree metabolism and wood decomposition.

3) There is way, way more O2 in the atmosphere than CO2 so the effects all human activity (or ecosystems) on global O2 levels are miniscule compared to their effect on global CO2 levels.

Burning down the entire amazon rainforest would be a bad for a number of reasons (release of CO2, changes in global weather patterns, loss of bio-diversity, etc), but impact on global atmospheric O2 levels is NOT one of those reasons.

Fear mongering about a non-issue with made up facts only serves to provide ammunition to anti-science skeptics.

[EB66]

> If you were really concerned about people misunderstanding the article, you would not make up claims and attribute them to the author. Instead you would quote the relevant parts of the article to demonstrate what is actually being said.

What on Earth are you referring to?

> The author in no way claims that the Amazon is in equilibrium

Yes he does. As I already explained to you, the author asserts that the O2 produced by the Amazon rainforest ecosystem is equal to the amount of O2 consumed by the Amazon rainforest ecosystem -- that is a perfect example of what it means to be in equilibrium. He literally says it in big bold letters:

> the net contribution of the Amazon ECOSYSTEM (not just the plants alone) to the world's oxygen is effectively zero.

Did he use the word equilibrium? No. Did he describe an equilibrium? Yes!

I am done arguing with you on this point -- it has truly devolved into semantics and has become unnecessarily inflammatory. At this point all I can do is refer you to a dictionary.

> Fear mongering about a non-issue with made up facts only serves to provide ammunition to anti-science skeptics.

Fear mongering? Now you've truly lost me. If asserting that forests net sequester carbon and produce O2 makes me a fear monger, then I'm guilty as charged...

[shkkmo]

> At this point all I can do is refer you to a dictionary.

The paper you cited as "disproving" the author's argument for "prefect equilibrium" was co-authored by the author.

Indeed, in the comments on the article, the author explains further:

>> [net carbon sequestration] is not related to the total amount of photosynthesis, but to where organic matter is being buried and removed from atmosphere and biosphere. This occurs in places like swamps, peat bogs and in particular deep ocean sediments. Material from the Amazon probably plays some role in this (e.g. organic material being swept out into the ocean and being buried in deep sediment), but this process is not strongly related to the amount of photosynthesis in any given area. I suspect the burial of a tiny fraction ocean plankton in deep sediments play a dominant role here.

> Fear mongering? Now you've truly lost me. If asserting that forests net sequester carbon and produce O2 makes me a fear monger, then I'm guilty as charged...

Sorry, I am talking about making claims like "the amazon produces 20% of our oxygen." and I was doing so to justify what you called "nitpicking"

The point I was trying to make (and clearly did a poor job with) is summarized by the author in one of his responses to attacks like yours and strainers:

>> No ecosystem scientist I have spoken disagrees with the science in this post: it simply highlights a long-established scientific understanding that oxygen angle is a myth. Just like no serious climate scientist denies the seriousness and importance of human-caused made climate change. If you choose to be selective about which science to choose to hear you fall into the same trap as the climate deniers, construct your own alternative facts universe and you betray your scientific training. The also open yourself the other, more accurate arguments being discredited as a package when the scientific truth emerges