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

Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

yadvindermalhi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 227 posts

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#61

Post by gamblor956 »

liability wrote: post #36
majos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite get the claim behind the Gell-Mann effect. It assumes that because journalism about physics is inaccurate and oversimplified, journalism about everything else is too. But why should this be? Physics, and similar hard sciences, are deep and complex fields. There's plenty of math, jargon, and a long literature. Of course inaccurate simplifications happen when writing about it for a popular audience. Add i…

> In contrast, other newspaper topics like politics, sports, business, etc. are often literal reporting of what people do. I was once in a local paper for my participation in a sports team. Well, my picture was. The name given to me in the article and caption was fabricated. Such a name didn't even belong to anybody else in my school, let alone on the same team! I assume the 'reporter' was too drunk to remember my na…

That is extremely unusual since besides generally require release forms from people in the pictures they run.

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#62

Post by ngold »

wcunning wrote: post #3

The basic gist of the article is found about 1/2 way in: "First, the phytoplankton in the oceans also photosynthesise [...] Therefore in terms of TOTAL global photosynthesis, photosynthesis in the Amazon contributes around 9%. [...] Second, a bigger point that is often missed is that the Amazon consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." This reminds me, as we should all be reminded on a regular basis, the bulk of…

So yes or no does the amazon provide 20% or not?

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#63

Post by _8j50 »

wcunning wrote: post #3

The basic gist of the article is found about 1/2 way in: "First, the phytoplankton in the oceans also photosynthesise [...] Therefore in terms of TOTAL global photosynthesis, photosynthesis in the Amazon contributes around 9%. [...] Second, a bigger point that is often missed is that the Amazon consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." This reminds me, as we should all be reminded on a regular basis, the bulk of…

"...consumes about as much oxygen as it produces."

If it burns,there will be leftover life that will no longer be supported by the amazon. Causing a significant increase in net Oxygen consumption.

1% uncomoemsated consumption doesn't sound like much but it will remain that way or worse whic means total O2 will continue to deplete.

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#64

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

mycall wrote: post #46
wcunning wrote: post #3

The basic gist of the article is found about 1/2 way in: "First, the phytoplankton in the oceans also photosynthesise [...] Therefore in terms of TOTAL global photosynthesis, photosynthesis in the Amazon contributes around 9%. [...] Second, a bigger point that is often missed is that the Amazon consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." This reminds me, as we should all be reminded on a regular basis, the bulk of…

O2/CO2 aside, the Amazon rainforest's biodiversity is unique and has been a source for medical resource. There is more at stake than just breathing.

I hear this brought up a lot. Can you name a drug that has actually passed all the safety and efficacy trials that has been developed from something in the Amazon?

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#65

Post by empath75 »

_8j50 wrote: post #63
wcunning wrote: post #3

The basic gist of the article is found about 1/2 way in: "First, the phytoplankton in the oceans also photosynthesise [...] Therefore in terms of TOTAL global photosynthesis, photosynthesis in the Amazon contributes around 9%. [...] Second, a bigger point that is often missed is that the Amazon consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." This reminds me, as we should all be reminded on a regular basis, the bulk of…

"...consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." If it burns,there will be leftover life that will no longer be supported by the amazon. Causing a significant increase in net Oxygen consumption. 1% uncomoemsated consumption doesn't sound like much but it will remain that way or worse whic means total O2 will continue to deplete.

Not for very long.

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#66

Post by icelancer »

majos wrote: post #33
wcunning wrote: post #3

The basic gist of the article is found about 1/2 way in: "First, the phytoplankton in the oceans also photosynthesise [...] Therefore in terms of TOTAL global photosynthesis, photosynthesis in the Amazon contributes around 9%. [...] Second, a bigger point that is often missed is that the Amazon consumes about as much oxygen as it produces." This reminds me, as we should all be reminded on a regular basis, the bulk of…

I don't quite get the claim behind the Gell-Mann effect. It assumes that because journalism about physics is inaccurate and oversimplified, journalism about everything else is too. But why should this be? Physics, and similar hard sciences, are deep and complex fields. There's plenty of math, jargon, and a long literature. Of course inaccurate simplifications happen when writing about it for a popular audience. Add i…

>> In contrast, other newspaper topics like politics, sports, business, etc. are often literal reporting of what people do

This comment should be preserved for all time and cited in the Gell-Mann Effect entry. Do you really think physics is infinitely more complicated than finance or politics?

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#67

Post by gus_massa »

skosch wrote: post #44
alacombe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not according to NASA... https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

That article is from over a week ago, and it cites http://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#amazon , which has since been updated. Indeed, people are burning more this year than they did in the past few years – any burning at all has always been unacceptable, but if the current spike is what it takes to finally create some international outrage and put pressure on Bolsonaro, then I'll gladly take it.

> any burning at all has always been unacceptable

It's a traditional farming practice that has been used all over the word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn

The idea is that you can burn a small place, cultivate it for a few years and then abandon it so the natural grow of the forest regenerate it. And some years later repeat the cicle.

When the population is small it's fine because the time between burn and burn was enough for the soil and forest to recover. When the population increase the time gets too small and the forest has not enough tome to recover, and after a few cicles you have problems like reduction of fertility, erosion and desertification.

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#68

Post by ramphastidae »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #64
mycall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

O2/CO2 aside, the Amazon rainforest's biodiversity is unique and has been a source for medical resource. There is more at stake than just breathing.

I hear this brought up a lot. Can you name a drug that has actually passed all the safety and efficacy trials that has been developed from something in the Amazon?

Quinine for one. There are many more if you are willing to do five minutes of research: https://www.conservation.org/blog/5-rainforest-species-that-...

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#69

Post by Monroe13 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #61
liability wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In contrast, other newspaper topics like politics, sports, business, etc. are often literal reporting of what people do. I was once in a local paper for my participation in a sports team. Well, my picture was. The name given to me in the article and caption was fabricated. Such a name didn't even belong to anybody else in my school, let alone on the same team! I assume the 'reporter' was too drunk to remember my na…

That is extremely unusual since besides generally require release forms from people in the pictures they run.

In the US at least, no release form is required of those pictured in a news article.

Re: Does the Amazon provide 20% of our oxygen?

#70

Post by mattkrause »

icelancer wrote: post #66
majos wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite get the claim behind the Gell-Mann effect. It assumes that because journalism about physics is inaccurate and oversimplified, journalism about everything else is too. But why should this be? Physics, and similar hard sciences, are deep and complex fields. There's plenty of math, jargon, and a long literature. Of course inaccurate simplifications happen when writing about it for a popular audience. Add i…

>> In contrast, other newspaper topics like politics, sports, business, etc. are often literal reporting of what people do This comment should be preserved for all time and cited in the Gell-Mann Effect entry. Do you really think physics is infinitely more complicated than finance or politics?

I'm not sure about that specifically, but reporting on politics is much closer to the paper's core competency.

The paper runs articles on politics every single day. The characters and issues don't change too quickly: Quimby was the mayor last week; next week, he'll be the same mayor, dogged by the same scandals and trying to enact the same politics too. A lot of the facts are easy to check, if someone cared to do so. The reporters may have a background in political science or history, or something somewhat related.

In contrast, the science section is pretty small. Maybe it runs once a week and has one or two main reporters, who cover everything from Astronomy to Zoology. No one has a background in all of that, and many reporters don't have a technical background at all. You can try to fact check it, but the experts themselves don't always agree and it's hard to tell whether Dr. So-and-So is really an expert on the topic anyway.

And, despite all that, the science reporting I see does a pretty good job. One of my papers got a bit of media coverage, and pretty much everyone got the broad strokes right. One place made me sound a little too exuberant about the immediate ramifications; another made me sound a bit too negative, but neither was egregiously bad.

Post reply on HN