81–90 of 227 posts
20% of sequestered carbon dioxide is in the Amazon. If it burns to the ground then that CO2 will be released. It doesn’t affect oxygen levels.
Burning that carbon to CO2 requires oxygen, which will deplete the atmospheric reservoir to some degree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"...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.
20% of sequestered carbon dioxide is in the Amazon. If it burns to the ground then that CO2 will be released. It doesn’t affect oxygen levels.
Isn't it 20% of sequestered carbon , not CO2? Burning that carbon to CO2 requires oxygen, which will deplete the atmospheric reservoir to some degree.
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…
I sort of understand the misgendering. Most visible street people are male. But the fabricated quote made me feel like "They think they can just do anything they want because I'm so poor." That felt like intentionally shitty behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-...
And it doesn’t seem that it will get higher. My impression of modern pharmaceutical research is that instead of focusing on natural medicinal compounds, it is more focused on discovering the exact mechanisms behind various disease processes and synthesizing molecules that either slow down or speed up key pathways along those processes.
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…
Like, when a journalist quotes you in print, it is often not a real direct quote, but rather the journalists interpretation of what you said (which can be way off). Always insist to "check quotes" or you could get a surprise when you read your interview.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's 5 minutes of research if you know what you're looking for. It can be much more if you don't, and you don't know when and where to stop. BTW, that's kind of the entire point of a site like HN. Experts from different fields (and hobbyists and laypersons) get together and exchange knowledge. Sorry to go on about this, but I've been seeing too many responses saying to go Google things.
> It's 5 minutes of research if you know what you're looking for. It can be much more if you don't, and you don't know when and where to stop. I know nothing about the topic, but literally just Googled Drugs from the Amazon [1], and the very first example of the very first search result I came across was Quinine. [2] [1] https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=drugs+from+the+ama... [2] https://www.adventure-life.co…
Given the option between not commenting at all or offering some variant of JFGI, I'll strongly prefer the former. "You don't have to attend every fight you're invited to", or comment on every post. But if you do, try to land solid punches. Even if you're not Mohammed Ali.
(I've frequently learned things, and more than once entirely changed my mind, in researching to answer comments.)
Macron: "We the G7, the most industrialized and polluting nations, should gang up on this up and coming 3rd world country. Look at my might!!"
Go wave a white flag Macron
The red regions are largely tropical rainforest. Exceedingly highly productive, but not particularly viable for human agricultural activity.
What stands out are the regions which I'm aware are highly agriculturally productive, indicated in green and cyan: the eastern half of the US, generally, the Argentine and Brazillian Pampas regions, the Sahel, Europe (particularly western Europe -- England, France, and Germany), and south and East Asia. A small patch of Central America.
Notably contrasting: the western US, other than a thin strip (the central valleys of California and Oregon), the Australia, other than the extreme south-eastern band, the Sahara, virtually all of Russia, western South America, and most of Canada. And of course, the Sahara and Antarctica.
We're feeding 7.7 billions of souls on those regions of green and light blue. Those are also the regions in which the great civilisations of the past have developed -- compare with a time-lapse of human population such as:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. The 2019 fires are way outside of the average: http://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html Also, what you call average is only the average over the past few years, which means: illegal loggers and ranchers burning the forest on purpose. The true long-term average is a healthy forest with very few fires.
Can you point out where that page supports that claim? > only the average over the past few years That only reinforces in the point; if the numbers changed from the average a few years ago, why the sudden massive response just now?
