Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

> 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

> how could he have participated in the study but publish a blog post that contradicts the primary conclusions of the study?

Short answer: Because the article doesn't contradict the study at all.

1) The rainforest is a carbon sink: It holds carbon that would otherwise be present in the atmosphere as CO2.

2) The rainforest is currently a net carbon sink: As an ecosystem it takes in more CO2 than it releases.

3) The rainforest (like most ecosystems) operates fairly close to equilibrium: The amounts of CO2/O2 consumed and produced tend to be pretty close.

4) Major ecological net carbon sinks depend less on the amount of photosynthesis in the ecosystem than they do on the sequestration of bio-matter into the ground.

5) There is ~500x more O2 than CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that the effects of the carbon cycle on atmospheric O2 are far less pronounced than on CO2.

6) net oxygen production of the amazon is effectively 0 (millions of years before a significant impact) because of 5) and 3)

In what way do any of these points contradict eachother?

The major reason (carbon cycle related, excluding biodiversity & global weather patterns & cooling etc) to care about about the amazon is to avoid releasing the CO2 already there. Purely in terms of net carbon sinking ecosystems, we should be paying more attention to our oceans as they do a much better job of sequestering that carbon into the ground.

Oxygen in the atmosphere is simply not an issue because we have so much of it.

Please I have not attacked the professor at all. I have "attacked" an article which has you calling a statement which in all likelihood originates from the advice of an earth scientist > "bad science" and "mis-information" and has you defending the claim that the amazon ecosystems contribution to atmospheric oxygen "effectively zero" And that practically extends to co2 - any caveats are in fact in contradiction to the professors advice that fires and organisms use up all the produced oxygen. But we've already gone through that and are talking past each other now.