Comments
wiyawiyayo t1_iucvds7 wrote
A win for planet earth..
autotldr t1_iucx4yx wrote
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
> The annual Antarctic ozone hole reached an average area of 8.9 million square miles between Sept. 7 and Oct. 13, 2022.
> Researchers at NASA and NOAA detect and measure the growth and breakup of the ozone hole with instruments aboard the Aura, Suomi NPP, and NOAA-20 satellites.
> When the polar sun rises, NOAA scientists also make measurements with a Dobson Spectrophotometer, an optical instrument that records the total amount of ozone between the surface and the edge of space - known as the total column ozone value.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: ozone^#1 hole^#2 over^#3 scientist^#4 year^#5
AdTrick2620 t1_iucx5fy wrote
And it’s all thanks to none other than Kanye West
Cosmonaut15 t1_iucx62q wrote
Good idea. Tell people to stop eating meat!!! :)
brockwallace t1_iucxwb9 wrote
Hah, deforestation was the reason I went vegetarian. I'm not a super strict vegetarian, but I limited eating meat to about once a month after I learned the environmental impacts of factory farming.
Cosmonaut15 t1_iucy45c wrote
Meat agriculture accounts for 1/5 of HABITABLE land. Due to "growth economics" the industry must always expand... Even though populations are currently declining we need to expand meat production because of misguided, and totally destructive capitalist principals. People must understand the immediate impact of letting the meat industry get away with destroying our planet for profits.
brockwallace t1_iucy6yt wrote
Red lentils are life.
imastruggl t1_iucyjtj wrote
Heard Kanye east payed a huge role as well
jeoeker531 t1_iucyodv wrote
Remember that over 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, not forests
Lmao who’s downvoting this? It’s simply a fact
Sojurn83 t1_iucys8o wrote
Either solve it at consumer side, which seems unlikely as there’ll always be meat fanatics. Or charge carbon tax and drive it out of profitability, which also doesn’t seem very likely due to lobbying. Would be nice if everyone agreed on the problem so we could solve it rapidly, but it looks like a lot more change management is needed here.
Suessbot t1_iucyz4i wrote
it was declining in the 80s when news like this was only reported in print in scientific rags.
then it was declining again in the 90s after CFCs were banned and the patents on r-12 ran out that forced us to switch to r-134.
now its declining again 30 years later? i thought this was a decade thing or did it just not get reported the last couple decades?
Cosmonaut15 t1_iuczm78 wrote
I love the idea of a carbon tax. The key really is political corruption. Neither party would hurt their corporate donors like that. Even as the oil industry sells us out with price gouging, even as they lie about the impact of emissions, both parties leadership upholds this suicidal status quo. HOW CAN THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT???
I will say firmly and adamantly that the leadership of both parties are knowingly complicit in our extinction. This is genocide. The US oligarchy must be destroyed.
People need to rise together and demand or remove financial incentives and corruption from our political system. People need to demand accountability for our attempted murder. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE SURVIVE.
brockwallace t1_iuczsbg wrote
Oh okay, well then who needs trees, may Aswell cut em all down.
Sojurn83 t1_iuczsep wrote
Yep. But not enough people are doing that. Until it’s done, business will continue to do what businesses are designed and incentivised to do, increase profits at the cost of long term sustainability.
ranixon t1_iuczt5n wrote
Is declining every year, it should be closed by 2075 afaik
jeoeker531 t1_iud01a4 wrote
That’s not what I said… I’m just saying that it’s not so harmful or detrimental that trees are cut down responsibly. They are a reusable resource. Also the corn belt in the USA in season provides more oxygen than the Amazon too
This-is-human-bot556 t1_iud054s wrote
I’m going to love the day all these environmental groups succeed in getting meat production cut because holy shit are their going to be a lot of dead cows and that’s when I’ll get my steak cheap
avd706 t1_iud0rqz wrote
It is ok, they grow back.
[deleted] t1_iud0uf7 wrote
[removed]
Cosmonaut15 t1_iud18qf wrote
No time to waste. That's why I support people throwing soup at paintings because most of us do not get the severity of the issue or the difficulty in changing it. Or they don't care which is just suicidal and dumb.
LudSable t1_iud4v1o wrote
And it's mainly the obsession with beef that requires so much land and cause so much pollution.
TheEnabledDisabled t1_iud5nat wrote
Most deforestation projects are for plant growth like coconut oil
Cosmonaut15 t1_iud6c0t wrote
I mean yeah plant oils are pretty impactful no denying that. Still though. ONE FIFTH of habitable land for meat agriculture is a horrifying statistic that's only getting worse as populations decrease and the ONLY excuse is capitalist greed.
Outlander_-_ t1_iud6ete wrote
And what about animal ecosystems?
Hardwood forest take close to 100 years to regrow fully. All those animals that require specific hardwood ecosystems can’t survive if we keep cutting down there homes.
Cosmonaut15 t1_iud6k7w wrote
Plus we really need to stop reducing animals to objects or tools. It's culturally barbaric imo. We've normalized this abuse for too long. I'll be damned if we're going to let greedy capitalists reduce humanity to that kind of tribal nonsense.
[deleted] t1_iud7k8l wrote
[deleted]
Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iud85o7 wrote
Woah really? That seriously astounds me! I’ve heard high numbers thrown around about the amazon but I’ve never heard of any numbers on the oceans. Makes sense just never really thought of it.
LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8966 wrote
Fuck 'em
[deleted] t1_iud8a7n wrote
[removed]
elencus t1_iud8hng wrote
And oxygen isn't the only benefit of forests? this whole convo feels like an easy porque no los dos lmao
LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8ohm wrote
> I will say firmly and adamantly that the leadership of both parties are knowingly complicit in our extinction.
Even if the worst predictions of the kookiest climate doomers were to come true, I can assure you that mankind would not go extinct. Pockets of population would survive (as they always have) and adapt to the changing conditions through technical means. On a longer scale, evolution would kick in and produce humans that are biologically adapted to live in the new climate.
LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8se9 wrote
> No time to waste. That's why I support people throwing soup at paintings
Thanks for that, the most idiotic thing I've read so far today.
Cosmonaut15 t1_iud99y0 wrote
I just explained how politicians are paid off by oil lobbyists to purposefully fail to act. If the media was accurately portraying the severity of the issue, the public would in a total rage. The media ignores these issues, and whether you care to admit it or not much of the media STILL pushes misinformation that climate change even exists going so far as to ridicule the idea. The US public is COMPLETELY disarmed in terms of information and awareness. They are sleep walking onto a busy highway.
Those Activists are desperately trying to make headlines to bring attention to this critical issue which that powers at be choose to ignore for profit every single day.
Now explain what's idiotic about that be specific. If you're here to deny the immediate threat of climate induced extinction then feel free to carry on.
[deleted] t1_iud9br7 wrote
Regular_Donut_8890 t1_iud9e3p wrote
Let's go! We did a good!
Cosmonaut15 t1_iud9ol2 wrote
Ok. That's still an unfathomable, dire scenario full of untold suffering for all life on the planet. Have some humanity.
We have to address overconsumption first. We can't innovate around the fact that western society is consuming far beyond their needs while feeling the LEAST impact compared to poor countries with competitively nonexistent emission levels. Again, have some humanity.
jeoeker531 t1_iud9q4z wrote
Ok I never said it was the only benefit of forests. I’m just saying, again, that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly. It’s a reusable resource
jeoeker531 t1_iud9sx0 wrote
Why? Animals do that to eachother. It’s literally nature. Our bodies are actually designed to eat meat
4myoldGaffer t1_iud9t94 wrote
I was in the pool!!!
jeoeker531 t1_iud9wuo wrote
Yep planktons in the ocean contribute to about 70% of earths oxygen
Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iuda8v6 wrote
Expected scrolling through the news to be filled with sadness after this is a neat gleam of light poking through
Shadow_Lazer t1_iudal1r wrote
Brilliant logic, with no signs of logical fallacies.
Humans will survive because they always have.
Humans will survive because technology.
Humans will survive because evolution.
#1 we have not always existed, and we are mortal.
#2 our technology requires a lot to function, it breaks down, need new parts, stable power, etc
#3 evolution doesn't work as fast as the environment is changing
Just more hubris for the pile
LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iudapm2 wrote
And you think some scraggly hippies throwing soup at a painting is going to change any of that?
It may come as a surprise, but when the average person sees that on the news they don't think "gee, you know what, that girl with the tattoos and dreadlocks sure changed my mind by vandalizing that painting!" No, they think "what a bunch of fuck-heads," and carry on with their lives.
NessyComeHome t1_iudb4oz wrote
Has nothing to do with patents. It has to do with the ozone depletion and greenhouse warming potentials.
Phase out started in 2010 and no new manufacturing as of 2020.* of HCFC'S like r-22.
R-22 is being phased out in HVAC. Prices for reclaimed r-22 shot up because there is no new manufacturing of r-22 as of 2020. Hcfc have a lower Ozone Depletion Potential than cfc's, but it isn't a perfect 0, for r-22 it's .05 with a Greenhouse Warming Potential of 1700, where r-134a has an odp of 0 and a gwp of 1300.
elencus t1_iudc46s wrote
>that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly.
Well that's completely different from what the original comment you replied to said. They specifically criticized clearcutting forests, which is not responsible. I think to interpret their comment as anti-christmas tree farm or similar responsible forestry practices is... disingenuous.
Shoddy_Performer_999 t1_iudcr9d wrote
And we still have anti-vaxxers. lol.
Entire-Cycle-3537 t1_iuddo2v wrote
Germany firing up that devilish coal plant will take care of that…
HelpMeFindALampShade t1_iude27j wrote
Or we can just massively reduce it and shop local instead of relying on it being shipped overseas.
Something that would help if we did it for the majority of our food.
Cosmonaut15 t1_iudekax wrote
That should be said for our entire economy!!!!
Western overconsumption is criminal. It starts at the top our systems are all built around it - from food to transit. All at a cost to consumers and our environment!!!
It's tragically poetic that the economy seems to be collapsing in tandem with our environment. This capitalist system is not sustainable.
OMGitsTK447 t1_iudeufj wrote
Why isn’t there a „All of mankind worked together and saved the planet“ holiday?
HelpMeFindALampShade t1_iudf2yj wrote
But infinite growth!!!!1!1!1!1!
NemeshisuEM t1_iudfckj wrote
And what would be the effect of fucking up 30% of the supply of anything?
Cosmonaut15 t1_iudfjdh wrote
Your entire argument is just insulting the Activists who are risking their freedom. How weak.
I commend their bravery.
Cosmonaut15 t1_iudfl5k wrote
Biggest lie we were ever told.
SleepyTempeh t1_iudfno4 wrote
Do you honestly think that there’s going to be a cutover day and the final step is cow genocide?
This-is-human-bot556 t1_iudg9zz wrote
No it’s a joke with my friends. Not sure why I’m getting downvoted. Also cows are evil no souls look them in their soulless eyes and tell me I’m wrong. But really it’s just going to be boring the government will keep increasing the size of land needed for every 1 head of Cattle until it’s more sustainable
jeoeker531 t1_iudgt54 wrote
Not so severe when you can replace it. Trees are replaceable. And supplies of one thing aren’t as vital as supplies as others. So fucking up 30% of something might not always be a big deal. Trees are reusable and don’t provide the majority of oxygen
Koreish t1_iudh05r wrote
jeoeker531 t1_iudh31g wrote
I mean clear cutting trees isn’t inherently bad either. Again, they’re reusable and can be planted elsewhere. Clear cutting in certain areas isn’t bad. Indiscriminately clear cutting everywhere would be bad
NemeshisuEM t1_iudheha wrote
Yeah? How long does it take to replace a healthy, mature forest?
Also, have you looked at what is it in the oceans that produces oxygen and what things impact that?
Lastly, please link your post-doc, peer-reviewed source for "meh, 30% is not significant."
Thanks.
jeoeker531 t1_iudhs1j wrote
Trees don’t make 30% of oxygen either. The corn belt in the USA at its height of the year makes more oxygen then the Amazon. And nobodies cutting down all trees not even close. In fact there there are more trees in the US now then there were 100 years ago.
xDatBear t1_iudilcc wrote
And tastes so good.
NemeshisuEM t1_iudix7l wrote
So how many new-growth trees equal to 1 old-growth one? Or are you going to tell me a 1' wide tree does the same work as a 10' wide one?
jeoeker531 t1_iudj5nh wrote
Why are we looking at what one individual tree does when we have data for all the trees? For millions of trees?
jeoeker531 t1_iudjcnm wrote
The point is that trees are renewable resources and that even that 1’ wide tree will grow into the 10’ tree
NemeshisuEM t1_iudjymh wrote
Because you stated "there are more trees now in the US than 100 years ago."
Commercial tree farming does not compare to an old-growth forest in numerous ways, so to compare apples to apples, we would need to know how the oxygen production of the two compare.
Got a link to a study doing that?
NemeshisuEM t1_iudkfza wrote
But tree farms do not wait until the tree is mature to harvest it. That's like counting male calves as full head of cattle when in reality they get culled at a young age. Using that analogy, it seems disingenuous to compare a 50lb calf with a 2000lb steer. Yeah, each one has a head but one is not like the other.
dagbiker t1_iudkrzm wrote
Just in time for the ice caps to melt!!!
jeoeker531 t1_iudm3x8 wrote
Didn’t know you were the tree farm professor. You’re talking out your ass
jeoeker531 t1_iudm7qy wrote
How much does the comparison of oxygen production matter when the vast majority of oxygen production isn’t been due to trees?
sloopslarp t1_iudmcqj wrote
One of our last great climate victories.
Modern Republicans would never have agreed with the Montreal Protocol if such an agreement was needed now.
You'd have millions of people convinced that it's a conspiracy. We would start hearing reports of Floridians defiantly huffing CFCs.
sloopslarp t1_iudmlnp wrote
Good thing we're taking care of our oceans, right?
...right?
cheese4352 t1_iudmsfa wrote
We did it boys. Global warming is over.
sloopslarp t1_iudmvqv wrote
Ozone layer depletion is not the only source of harmful climate change.
boner_sauce t1_iudn6f5 wrote
You're gonna have to start reading more books. I believe if you're going to comment on topics you should educate yourself. Find out what causes ozone depletion and come back and contribute something that could pass as semi-intelligent.
continuousQ t1_iudn7ex wrote
Plant growth for animal feed. About 80% of agricultural land is for meat production.
Seriksy t1_iudn7vx wrote
Only in the US though
[deleted] t1_iudniao wrote
[removed]
NemeshisuEM t1_iudnmqt wrote
Says the guy that just asserted that we can just replant the forests without a clue as to what that entails.
NemeshisuEM t1_iudo1gb wrote
Perhaps you should read up on this before asserting there is no problem.
jeoeker531 t1_iudoyv8 wrote
The ocean STILL producing that even now, however bad it is at the moment. Also the ocean is extremely vast
jeoeker531 t1_iudp2hd wrote
I didn’t go into anything specific or any details, I simply said that trees are renewable resources. Which is objectively true
jeoeker531 t1_iudp4oh wrote
Where did I say there wasn’t a problem? Can you find that for me?
NemeshisuEM t1_iudpmpu wrote
Yeah, it is technically true but your comment came off as dismissive of a problem by oversimplifying it.
Love_Parahuman t1_iudqhsx wrote
The one time every single country agree on something... I missed the good all days...
carrieismyhobby t1_iudrv3w wrote
It shrank’Like a frightened turtle’
elencus t1_iudssu0 wrote
I think at the very best you can claim that in some cases clearcutting forests is controversial and provides niche edge benefits. Why you are so insistent to point out cutting trees can be good, I have no idea.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/is-clear-cutting-us-forests-good-for-wildlife
Illgetitdonelater t1_iudu1s2 wrote
The SE makes the rest of Americans look like idiots. Way to Florida ant rest of you Chump supporters
SniperPilot t1_iudutsp wrote
Lol that’s like saying you won when you got that free watered down drink you get at the casino!
AltruisticYam7670 t1_iudw2ti wrote
What is that feeling I have? Not used to good news anymore
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudyzdp wrote
I wonder how acidification of the oceans will affect phytoplankton...
https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720
Oh... so we may want to start planting trees. A lot of trees...
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudz8hu wrote
Regarding that light, acidification of the ocean surface due to increased atmospheric CO2 is starting to fuck with the phytoplankton.
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudze4g wrote
The part that produces the oxygen is only about 30 feet deep.
Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iudzufm wrote
And the light is diminishing
blablanonymous t1_iue08q3 wrote
The one good news about the direction this planet is going?
Skud_NZ t1_iue0e2o wrote
I wonder how fast it would get fixed if the hole was over north America
Bergensis t1_iue0pjf wrote
> when news like this was only reported in print in scientific rags.
I was a teenager in the 80s, and I was aware of the hole in the ozone layer, and that CFC caused it. I didn't read scientific rags back then.
Bergensis t1_iue1t1c wrote
> Phase out started in 2010 and no new manufacturing as of 2020.
The phase out started much before that. In 1978 the use of CFC as a propellant for aerosol cans was banned in the USA.
> R-22 is being phased out in HVAC. Prices for reclaimed r-22 shot up because there is no new manufacturing of r-22 as of 2020. Hcfc have a lower Ozone Depletion Potential than cfc's, but it isn't a perfect 0, for r-22 it's .05 with a Greenhouse Warming Potential of 1700, where r-134a has an odp of 0 and a gwp of 1300.
I'd like to add that the phase out of R134a in favour of R1234yf in car A/C began in 2012.
Sstavish1 t1_iue2qpu wrote
Clearcutting actually has some benefits in terms of enviromentalism- high light intensity trees grow back much faster in clearcut plots. A clearcut plot also somewhat mimics a natural disturbance such as a wildfire, providing habitats to animals that require stand-replacing disturbances to profilerate.
NessyComeHome t1_iue2tjw wrote
My apologies, I was adding stuff around and meant to say r22 phase out began in 2010 with no new manufacturing of r22 since 2020. I will add a * to make it more clear.
Getting my cert, you learn a lot.. like just how bad cfc's were. If I remember correctly, it was 1 molecule of cfc destroyed 100,000 ozone molecules.
crazy1000 t1_iue3484 wrote
To be fair, we did just ratify the Kigali amendment. Which is a climate treaty aimed at phasing out HFCs. But the industries that actually produce the HFCs/refrigerants were for it, so that helped.
PilotEvilDude t1_iue38vb wrote
I must have misread the title it sounds like actual good news for once but that can't be right at least in this sub
DrBrisha t1_iue5gda wrote
Well-oxygen isn’t the only benefit of forests. Diversity and thriving ecosystems provide services that are critical. I just don’t think you can justify cutting the Amazon to the point of no return is “meh”. That’s just one example. Oxygen isn’t the talking point there.
fish_mammal_whatever t1_iue62br wrote
There was significant shrinkage!
happygloaming t1_iue9b78 wrote
Reading this entire thread I now know we're all going to die.
laser50 t1_iueau7o wrote
Yeah, lets start campaigning against the trees for once, we need houses and I need to charge my Iphone!
Aljrljtljzlj t1_iuec59g wrote
Oh man, now I get it. We made a mistake. The ozone hole was there too cool down the planet. We closed it, the heat can't escape any more.
MicrosoftExcel2016 t1_iuegj6p wrote
Don’t worry, it may be shrinking, but there’s still plenty of time for your hot air to escape the planet
cnnrduncan t1_iuej465 wrote
Nature is full of rape and infanticide, should we legalise both crimes simply because they're natural?
cnnrduncan t1_iuejd3u wrote
Got a source for that? 80% of Amazonian deforestation is done for beef and the plants that get fed to cattle.
Aljrljtljzlj t1_iuejlcp wrote
Is it that difficult to detect sarcasm?
cnnrduncan t1_iuejnyw wrote
The ozone hole doesn't really cause climate change, it mostly just increases skin cancer rates in parts of the southern hemisphere.
MicrosoftExcel2016 t1_iuejqcu wrote
You tell me
cnnrduncan t1_iuejr63 wrote
Coal burning doesn't produce HFCs or CFCs
____DEAFPOOL____ t1_iuend94 wrote
How many hands is that?
brockwallace t1_iuenkct wrote
I was going to mention this but decided just to sleep, thanks bruh.
Aljrljtljzlj t1_iuep21c wrote
D-d-d-d DOUBLE sarcasm.
MKQueasy t1_iueqvxz wrote
At least half
Yusis_2000 t1_iueqxe5 wrote
Thank fuck. I've needed some good news lately
MKQueasy t1_iuerbpa wrote
Those animals should have pulled themselves by the bootstraps and bought the forest as their property after investing in mutual index funds if they didn't want people cutting them down. They can only blame themselves for not participating in our capitalist society.
MicrosoftExcel2016 t1_iuercyg wrote
STEVEusaurusREX t1_iueyjye wrote
Yes, but forests are better for storing Carbon. Oceans storing more Carbon results in carbonic acid formation, reducing marine pH, harming organisms that have shells like mussels, clams and corals. The issue isn’t just O2 in the atmosphere.
JoMitchellHY t1_iuf183i wrote
once they lose homes to rising sea levels they'll realize too late its not conspiracy
r3b3l-tech t1_iuf1lww wrote
Not quite.
You can "reuse" trees in a economic sense but that doesn't account for externalities.
You have to also realize that there is life under trees that you just can't replant.
Yes, you can replant trees in a sustainable way but alas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Lumber_Company stuff like this happens.
tomato_soup_ t1_iuf2mu4 wrote
It would not matter one bit. We have seen time and time again that people will simply ignore things that are right in front of them.
EmotionalSuportPenis t1_iuf54n4 wrote
90 hands. A hand is 4 inches (a third of a foot).
Suessbot t1_iuf9ld3 wrote
I did.
And that hole was already closing by the time you heard about it. They were theorizing that it was a natural phenomenon. They know a little better now but it still seems to close every decade or so.
Suessbot t1_iufa6fp wrote
> Has nothing to do with patents. It has to do with the ozone depletion and greenhouse warming potentials
It has everything to do with parents. Sure, they tell a nice story about saving the ozone (that was already closing) but it's convenient that every time the parents run out, it gets banned and there is a shiney new refrigerant that is "so much safer".
Whether it really is safer or not, they come up with a new one everytime patents run out.
R12 ran out in the 90s. R134 ran out in the 10s. The new one will run out in the 30s.
Suessbot t1_iufa8uo wrote
Where did you get that from?
chasmoffaith t1_iufak9t wrote
Oh come on, it's not even halftime and were cheering. Just wait until we starting putting atmospheric dimming chemicals into the sky to slow climate change. Just like the CFCs they will accumulate at the poles and cause damage.
Also once we realize as a planet things are fucked and order breaks down on the geopolitical level, environmental protections will go with it.
NessyComeHome t1_iufaov7 wrote
Ozone hole was closing due to banning of CFC. CFC was extremely harmful to the environment.
R-22 is less harmful but still has an ODP, and a stronger GWP than r134a.
Not everything is a corprotacracy conspiracy.
ranixon t1_iufbq06 wrote
Sorry, more than closed is "pre-1980" leves. From Wikipedia, this is the source of the Wikipedia article
Suessbot t1_iufcxzd wrote
> R-22 is less harmful but still has an ODP, and a stronger GWP than r134a.
Nobody is disputing that.
Just pointing out that it's very convenient for the parents. If you think corporate America gives a shit about anything but their pocketbook then you need a serious reality check.
Also, the ozone hole was closing before the cfc ban.
Suessbot t1_iufd54g wrote
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I've been following this for 40 years. I was reading science journals before mmgw was a religion for the masses.
Blazerblaster t1_iuffaf5 wrote
Ah the old 70’s climate problem. Are we gonna do anything about methane now? Probably not.
fluffychonkycat t1_iufgout wrote
I was a kid in the 80s and I knew all about it. In New Zealand and Australia we were extremely aware of it, and we still pay the price for it with high rates of skin cancers. People from the northern hemisphere are always surprised by how easy it is to get a bad sunburn here
[deleted] t1_iufi3qa wrote
[removed]
Suessbot t1_iufjngf wrote
No ody knew about it in the 80s unless you worked in the field or read the published studies.
Successful_Theme_595 t1_iufkenv wrote
Hate when I have shrinkage.
Koala_eiO t1_iufleri wrote
Oh nice, that's also the part in contact with surface CO2 and getting more acidic every second.
Geesemeece t1_iufmz89 wrote
They are legalized against other animals, because it would be asinine to make it illegal.
mods_r_jobbernowl t1_iufnis4 wrote
Forests do a shit ton to keep the earth cool though especially on the ground. They help cities prevent heat islands. They do a lot more than just suck up co2
FourthLife t1_iufssr2 wrote
If the hole was over north america rural kentuckians would be sun bathing every afternoon to prove it was a hoax, and when they developed skin cancer they would blame it on democrats
[deleted] t1_iufts6q wrote
notyogrannysgrandkid t1_iug0ozy wrote
Logging is one of the few truly sustainable industries, when done correctly. Logging tracts in places like the PNW, East Texas, and Western Arkansas can be perpetually harvested and replanted in 30-40 year cycles (sometimes even as little as 25), meaning that the same piece of land can sequester a potentially unlimited amount of carbon, most of which will remain permanently sequestered in buildings and landscaping.
Brazilian beef producers obviously do not take this approach, which is an issue.
brockwallace t1_iug1agn wrote
"Clearcuting forests" is a fair bit different then "sustainable logging"
SpilledMiak t1_iug20wc wrote
Proof of concept. We can save humanity for a catastrophe if we choose.
VariationMountain273 t1_iug9q0z wrote
Rowland was a big easy going guy most always wore sandals of some sort, Molina a kind, quiet spoken as a young man
[deleted] t1_iugev0p wrote
alpaka7 t1_iugf36i wrote
It's true.
It's also important to note the importance of the ecosystem for the production of that oxygen. It's all connected. There are very good documentaries explaining this process in detail.
Also, nearly all oxygen produced by the Amazon rainforest is consumed by the forest.
Haunting_Progress462 t1_iugfed1 wrote
Pleasure to serve alongside you fellow earthling
sicariobrothers t1_iugm7df wrote
Ok I’ll bite. What is your outlook on man made climate change.
OldBallOfRage t1_iugqbqz wrote
The giant hole in the ozone layer has almost closed, just in time to lock in the choking, insulating heatshield of an atmosphere we destroyed in the meantime.
luke_sweatshirt t1_iugufzx wrote
Deforestation is not only a problem with oxygen production, but also carbon. Clear cutting forests releases co2
Suessbot t1_iuhd3yj wrote
irrelevant to this conversation.
im not denying the hole exists. im only pointing out that it seems to be closing every couple decades. in fact, it was closing shortly after they discovered it.
jeoeker531 t1_iuhlo9i wrote
We were always going to die… everyone dies
jeoeker531 t1_iuhm3yc wrote
Actually as of 2020 plankton numbers have been booming, not diminishing
jeoeker531 t1_iuhmfwx wrote
Yep, but you have to find specific examples of this not working. It can and does work… finding exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean it doesn’t work
jeoeker531 t1_iuhmisj wrote
No, because while we are animals ourselves we also have morals and society. The point is, our bodies are literally designed to eat meat
jeoeker531 t1_iuhmkog wrote
Because someone made it seem like it’s only bad
jeoeker531 t1_iuhn931 wrote
We do… the US has more trees now than it did 100 years ago
r3b3l-tech t1_iuhpsjp wrote
So it's a little bit the same with cattle raising. You can do it sustainably, but it is not as economically viable(you make money, but not as much).
Sustainability is the exception. Companies just want profit.
That's why I am saying "Not quite". Yes, it's a viable option but when you look at all the realities, it is just not happening the way you might envision it.
elencus t1_iuhsmnh wrote
which it arguably is?
jeoeker531 t1_iui005z wrote
It’s not though, clear cutting forests isn’t bad if it’s done responsibly and trees are replanted, which they are
elencus t1_iui1o5f wrote
Read the article I linked. It's controversial at best and not something that can always be done responsibly.
[deleted] t1_iui3kh7 wrote
[removed]
jeoeker531 t1_iui40bf wrote
Yes companies just want profit, but in capitalism, for companies to make profit and remain competitive they have to have quality and adhere to some degree to what customers want. If people don’t like what a company is doing the company will lose money. Unfortunately when the government gets involved it corrupts and degrades the free market and capitalism
r3b3l-tech t1_iui99ec wrote
Companies can and do make money, with sustainable ways, in a capitalistic economy. There has just been a lot of deregulation going on, which makes the free market unfair.
I don't really understand what you mean with government involvement degrading the free market?
I am currently reading this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53167676-the-sustainable-economy?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=K4gGPesEM3&rank=2
If you are from the US I really recommend giving it a read. I have been very fascinated by it and the author provides lots of sources to verify the information!
[deleted] t1_iui9wc1 wrote
[removed]
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuib4dn wrote
That's mostly because originally logging didn't replant trees and so a hundred years ago our tree stock was down from previous levels. States began legislating that logging required replanting so we're starting to get back to pre-logging levels but a plane flight over states like Oregon will give you an idea of just what clearcutting did to our forests before replanting was required by law.
jeoeker531 t1_iuieqkq wrote
Regardless there’s a net gain of trees on earth
Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuihiew wrote
Yes, it's good that we're planting trees but something to keep in mind is that photosynthesis (the reaction that consumes CO2 and produces O2) occurs in the leaves so older, more mature trees consume more CO2 and product more oxygen than younger trees. Even with replanting, the cutting of old growth trees and rain forests results in a net loss in CO2 capture and conversion to O2 unless your replanting significantly more trees than you're cutting. This also ignores the loss of undergrowth associated with logging.
I'm not saying we need to stop all logging, just pointing out that it's not as straightforward as it seems on initial inspection.
Bergensis t1_iujvd79 wrote
> I did.
Which ones?
While I didn't read scientific publications in the 1980s, I did watch the news, and the signing of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer would have made the news.
>And that hole was already closing by the time you heard about it. They were theorizing that it was a natural phenomenon. They know a little better now but it still seems to close every decade or so.
The hole is constantly opening and closing, as there are natural seasonal variations. It appears that it is a natural phenomenon that is made worse by human pollution. While the fight against ozone-depleting substances have largely been a success, there have been setbacks:
Bergensis t1_iujwuwm wrote
> No ody knew about it in the 80s unless you worked in the field or read the published studies.
I wouldn't have thought that Neil Young and Warren Zevon had the time and inclination to read the published studies. Both these songs were released in 1989:
Suessbot t1_iuk3tmo wrote
> The hole is constantly opening and closing, as there are natural seasonal variations. It appears that it is a natural phenomenon that is made worse by human pollution.
That's exactly the point.
Too bad the article and none of the other media say that. All the media ever does is post a "yay we fixed it" pat on the back article about some legislation that was passed, like banning CFCs.
Suessbot t1_iuk3xy7 wrote
Whoa, this changes EVERYTHING!
brockwallace t1_iucuv0z wrote
Yup we fixed it!
Now let's stop clearcuting forests.