Hear me out. This thought process requires a bit of knowledge of physics/chemistry.
On the martian poles, there are vast quantities of frozes CO2. This frozen CO2 exerts a certain “vapor pressure” - in other words, a certain partial pressure of gaseous CO2.
Now, if we convert this CO2 into O2 by removing the carbon out of it, the concentration of O2 in the atmosphere increases. And therefore, the concentration (and partial pressure) of CO2 decreases.
But since the frozen CO2 on the poles causes a certain partial pressure of CO2, a bit of the frozen CO2 will go into gaseous phase to refill the CO2 partial pressure.
So, by converting CO2 into O2, the concentration of O2 increases, but the concentration of CO2 stays approximately the same. As such, the total pressure (and density) of the atmosphere increases. This would happen if large-scale biological photosynthesis/growth took place.
I’ve seen arguments made that if things got going well enough, the rate of loss would be negligible enough to be replaceable by new materials bright in via asteroids, if things ever get that far in the first place.
However, the same arguments said that the real problem with the lack of magnetic field is the lack of protection given for pretty much anything the sun sends that way
Mind your, these arguments were made the same way both of these comments have been, just random internet people talking, so take it with a grain of Martian salt
the concern of radiation protection is not just from random internet people talking. that’s a very real concern for long term settling of Mars or anywhere without a magnetosphere.
I’d prefer to keep my perchlorate consumption to a minimum, thank you very much.
Well, your loss
Some people just aren’t adventurous eaters
Yeah, if we ever try to live on Mars, it will most likely be underground, baring some major breakthrough in shielding.