Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#111

Post by wilg »

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually)

Isn't the point of the article that you could kill every living thing besides humans (including plankton) and not disrupt the oxygen supply?

Also, another point of the article is that burning fossil fuels is the primary driver of oxygen decline, which seems urgent.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#112

Post by BurningFrog »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #67
vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

Um, the oxygen component is a red herring and distraction to the climate debate. It took many millennia of a tiny oxygen excess to get us the atmospheric mix we know. It's CO2 (and species and habitat loss) that matters, and the Amazon is hugely important for those, and for the climate of the region. Which the article seems pretty clear on. So how is it presenting an impression climate change isn't that bad, or there…

> It took many millennia of a tiny oxygen excess to get us the atmospheric mix we know

It actually took a few billion years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#113

Post by Xixi »

partialrecall wrote: post #33
mikepurvis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Released as waste via photosynthesis when it breaks apart CO2 in order to use the carbon to build plant matter?

If I recall my bio class right, the oxygen in the CO2 goes into the production of carbohydrates. The oxygen released as waste comes from split water molecules (photosynthesis requires both CO2 and H20.)

Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2

In English: 6 carbon dioxide molecules and 6 water molecules become 1 glucose molecule and 6 dioxygen molecules.

So for each CO2 molecule in, there is one O2 molecule out. Now it's entirely possible that some of the O in O2 comes from the H2O molecules. At most half of it if I know how to count up to twelve.

Edited for clarity.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#114

Post by unholythree »

ajross wrote: post #38
vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton See... but this is the kind of thing that leads to this kind of both-sides-ist article in the first place. In fact there are innumerable species of phytoplankton and other primary photosynthesizers, lots of which would be very happy to migrate toward the poles as the oceans warm. The planet may be warming rapidly, but it's been warmer in the…

I don't think the article is a critique of environmentalists so much as lazy pop science news that inacuratly simplfies and conflates issues. "Lungs of the Earth" stories distract from the very real problems with a inaccurate bumper sticker slogan.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#115

Post by partialrecall »

Xixi wrote: post #113
partialrecall wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall my bio class right, the oxygen in the CO2 goes into the production of carbohydrates. The oxygen released as waste comes from split water molecules (photosynthesis requires both CO2 and H20.)

Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 In English: 6 carbon dioxide molecules and 6 water molecules become 1 glucose molecule and 6 dioxygen molecules. So for each CO2 molecule in, there is one O2 molecule out. Now it's entirely possible that some of the O in O2 comes from the H2O molecules. At most half of it if I know how to count up to twelve. Edited for clarity.

It definitely doesn't matter, but I recall my bio teacher getting quite pedantic on this point. It's moderately interesting trivia I guess.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#116

Post by mikepurvis »

Xixi wrote: post #113
partialrecall wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall my bio class right, the oxygen in the CO2 goes into the production of carbohydrates. The oxygen released as waste comes from split water molecules (photosynthesis requires both CO2 and H20.)

Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 In English: 6 carbon dioxide molecules and 6 water molecules become 1 glucose molecule and 6 dioxygen molecules. So for each CO2 molecule in, there is one O2 molecule out. Now it's entirely possible that some of the O in O2 comes from the H2O molecules. At most half of it if I know how to count up to twelve. Edited for clarity.

And then the glucose is what becomes the building block for cellulose, lignin, etc, right?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#117

Post by mistermann »

wutbrodo wrote: post #62
partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

It's been really interesting to me to see how the concept that lying in support of your preferred narrative is the correct way to engage publicly with a problem has evolved over the last few years. It seems like only a few years ago that people who admitted to this strategy were roundly condemned. Now, it's a completely normal view to go out of your way to openly endorse lying about eg science as a moral course of ac…

> It's been really interesting to me to see how the concept that lying in support of your preferred narrative is the correct way to engage publicly with a problem has evolved over the last few years. It seems like only a few years ago that people who admitted to this strategy were roundly condemned.

I often think of the election of Donald Trump in this sense...in a way, he is showing us crystal clear how our political dialogue, if not our entire perception of reality, is illusory. Who would have thought that someone could run for president largely on a platform of obvious lies and one-dimensional platitudes? Well, now we know.

And rather than the left being shocked into a higher state of consciousness and considering they may need to rethink their overall political strategy, instead it seems they've essentially decided to double down with more of the same theater. I hoped there would have at least been some serious consideration of a strategy consisting of campaigning on the actual truth (to the best of their ability), rather than just "more true".

So many people, particularly those on the left I would say (the right tends to be in their own little world), think politics is based on a battle of facts, when really it is a battle of memes. It doesn't have to be, but someone righteous has to be allowed to make it through the Democratic primaries if we hope to ever move forward in this respect.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#118

Post by UnFleshedOne »

jstummbillig wrote: post #78
partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

This is incredibly naive in a reality, where the POTUS can contradict himself on social media – with traceable evidence dating back often not more than a week – and absolutely nothing coming of it. Right now, when it comes to public opinion and action, volume clearly beats a good signal/noise ratio. This is not an isolated issue, this happens all around the globe. Populism is on the rise. Simple beats true. Yes, you…

You can't fight populism with populism because main draw of populism is an assertion that "everything you suspected about those people is correct, you are not doing anything wrong, all your problems are the fault of elites and all those sacrifices they want you to make are not needed, I have 3 simple fixes that would solve everything without any hardship or change whatsoever".

When the core of your message is the opposite of that there is no way to phrase it in those terms. You can't join the race to the bottom and get where you need to go.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#120

Post by kian »

wutbrodo wrote: post #62
partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

It's been really interesting to me to see how the concept that lying in support of your preferred narrative is the correct way to engage publicly with a problem has evolved over the last few years. It seems like only a few years ago that people who admitted to this strategy were roundly condemned. Now, it's a completely normal view to go out of your way to openly endorse lying about eg science as a moral course of ac…

I wonder to what degree weaponized propaganda is aimed at liberalism and its component beliefs directly. Perhaps this could explain to some extent the speed of dissolution? Or has it always been this way?
Post reply on HN