[HN Gopher] Chemicals released during wildfires in Australia dam...
___________________________________________________________________
Chemicals released during wildfires in Australia damaged the ozone
layer
Author : pseudolus
Score : 210 points
Date : 2023-03-09 14:01 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Curiously enough, chlorine radicals and volatile organic
| compounds from coal and wood combustion have the opposite effect
| in the lower atmosphere, where the interaction _increases_ ozone
| production (due to reaction with various nitrogen oxides). This
| also generates the lung irritant PAN which is a component of
| brown smog:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36821
|
| > "The chlorine radical is a potent atmospheric oxidant, capable
| of perturbing tropospheric oxidative cycles normally controlled
| by the hydroxyl radical. Significantly faster reaction rates
| allow chlorine radicals to expedite oxidation of hydrocarbons,
| including methane, and in polluted environments, to enhance ozone
| production... Even when present at low levels, Cl radicals can
| have a profound impact on tropospheric oxidation and radical
| cycling. Cl chemistry can significantly impact levels of
| tropospheric ozone, a greenhouse gas that is also a precursor for
| the OH radical, destroying it in clean environments and enhancing
| its formation under polluted conditions."
|
| Incidentally, Australia's massive wildfires of 2019-2020 produced
| about 700 million tons of CO2, which is only about 1/3 of
| Australia's annual fossil CO2 generation from coal (counting
| total production of Australian coal, of which only about 1/5th is
| burned in Australia itself, the rest being exported).
|
| If you want to eliminate fossil fuel use, and aren't just
| posturing for political convenience, stopping production makes a
| lot more sense than stopping emissions at point-of-use.
| paganel wrote:
| > stopping production
|
| And then how do you provide energy cheaply and reliably enough?
| That is in order to maintain today's "civilizational level", so
| to speak.
|
| As far as I am aware the energy sources that are now branded as
| alternative cannot do that, i.e. provide energy that is both
| cheap and reliable.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Technology is reaching the point where renewables are just as
| cheap and reliable as fossil fuels (and note, coal plants
| break down and gas and oil supplies get interrupted):
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/australia-
| promi...
|
| It's rather interesting that some major fossil fuel producers
| are building renewable domestic infrastructure (Australia,
| Saudi Arabia) although they don't seem to want to cut exports
| as quickly.
| zizee wrote:
| Both of you have good points. The world needs cheap energy
| to function. Renewables are becoming more capable by the
| day, and can/will be that source of cheap reliable energy.
|
| But the transition is not going to be instantaneous. If
| renewables are as cheaper/reliable/better as fossil fuel
| (and continually improving) the economic incentives will
| effectively push the transition as fast as is possible. The
| transition is supply constrained as much as anything.
| Production of solar, wind is rapidly growing, but it can
| only grow so quickly.
| nojvek wrote:
| Coal exports are a huge part of Australia's GDP. Resource
| exports make 67% of their total exports
| https://www.rba.gov.au/snapshots/economy-composition-snapsho...
|
| If Australia stopped exporting Coal (mostly to China), it would
| decimate not only their economy, but affect China (world's
| factory) making everything else expensive too.
|
| Unpopular opinion: It seems with Coal or Gasoline, due to CO2
| emissions, they've been seen as unclean and something we should
| switch away from. However their energy density is high, only
| below nuclear. Easy to transport, relatively safe. It's an
| amazing source of fuel.
|
| I'm somewhat hopeful that someday we'll figure out how to
| capture 100s of millions of tons of C02 from atmosphere and
| turn it into synthetic gasoline-like fuel. All using solar
| energy.
|
| The whole dance of global warming is because we know how to
| burn fuels and create heat + CO2 + H20, but we don't know how
| to do the reverse cheaply at scale.
|
| Once we do that, then gasoline/ethanol is a renewable resource.
|
| Lithium ion batteries are great, but gasoline is 100x denser
| than batteries.
| guelo wrote:
| > capture 100s of millions of tons of C02 from atmosphere
|
| It's way more efficient to capture it at the source, ie. the
| coal plant. But nobody wants to talk about that because that
| would cost coal companies money and that's not allowed. They
| want to spew the pollution for free to keep coal energy
| "cheap" while the whole world has to pay for the cleanup.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| It would take all the energy the coal plant produced to
| capture all of its CO2 emissions, it's a pretty futile
| cycle... For comparison, try to imagine a diesel truck that
| captured all its emissions onboard as it drove down the
| highway. It's not very plausible and would represent a huge
| drain on power output.
|
| FutureGen was a massive failure, too.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| >If you want to eliminate fossil fuel use, and aren't just
| posturing for political convenience, stopping production makes
| a lot more sense than stopping emissions at point-of-use.
|
| Talk about posturing. This is the least effective way to reduce
| carbon emissions, because it simply won't be done without
| sufficient replacement energy generation and transmission in
| place, as well as alternatives for spot-use of hydrocarbons
| like automotive, heating, etc.
|
| If you want to get nothing done, propose solutions that make
| nobody happy. If you want to get something done propose
| solutions that can work.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| However, it would force people to do something. Restricting
| supply increases price, and thus alternatives/efficiencies
| become more viable.
|
| An effective climate preservation campaign would focus on
| production facilities - coal mines, oil rigs etc. Not
| necessarily directly - for example the best way to shut down
| North Sea oil production would be to make it impossible to
| fly helicopters out there - protest airfields, helicopter
| maintenance depos, protest to the pilots, disrupt the
| logistics. Of course this then becomes a national security
| threat, and would be dealt with accordingly.
| bluGill wrote:
| It forces them to vote you out of office and in come the
| subsidies for coal.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Yeah, for an example of how this works horribly in
| practice, look at how the French yellow vests rolled back
| their climate taxes
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Until the supreme dictator decrees this we need to figure
| out something that works in a market economy as we don't
| have a command economy.
| WalterBright wrote:
| At better way is tax it. Governments are experts at taxing.
| schneems wrote:
| And corporations are experts at regulatory capture.
|
| I would be amazed/surprised if one is introduced and
| effective. But you don't get what you don't fight for.
| Just because the odds are stacked against today doesn't
| mean we can't do something to shift that stack a bit for
| a better tomorrow.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| At the very least, counting the emissions from coal produced
| in Australia on Australia's carbon emissions ledger and
| attaching the 'externalities' to the producer makes more
| sense.
| zizee wrote:
| Coal consumption will not go down if Australia stops
| exporting coal. It's a fungible commodity. Whoever uses
| Australia coal would just move to another source if prices
| are increased to pay for the unreleased carbon.
|
| If you cannot ensure a consumer is affected, it won't
| change consumption (which is what we want).
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Well, that's why you have a global international treaty
| treating all producers the same, so they all have to pay
| the same carbon cost per ton of carbon exports. They can
| pass the cost onto the consumer in the form of higher
| prices, or they can absorb it themselves (reducing profit
| margins).
|
| It's also just easier to do the accounting on the
| producer-exporter side.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Exactly. And restrictions on supply will force people to use
| fossil fuels more efficiently, whereas just increasing
| efficiency might actually make people use _more_ fossil fuels -
| the Jevons paradox.
|
| I would suggest the slogan 'Leave it in the ground!'
| londons_explore wrote:
| > If you want to eliminate fossil fuel use, and aren't just
| posturing for political convenience, stopping production makes
| a lot more sense than stopping emissions at point-of-use.
|
| This. And the fact I haven't heard of any country saying "we'll
| stop extracting coal/oil to help the environment" tells me
| nobody really cares about the environment - everyone just wants
| to look like they care to appease voters.
| idontpost wrote:
| [dead]
| wil421 wrote:
| Norway is the perfect example of this. Nationally they seem
| to be moving towards EVs faster than others but they have no
| problems producing oil.
|
| The biggest lie told today is that pollution is our problem
| and that we, as individuals, can make a decent impact.
| Industry has to change to make any impact. It doesn't matter
| how clean your cars or energy sources are if you keep pumping
| fossil fuels out of the ground.
| pjc50 wrote:
| That would be leaving a substantial amount of money on the
| table. Also, they're not necessarily the same countries or
| people; there are for example anti-fracking movements in some
| of the countries where that is happening.
| omegabravo wrote:
| Depriving people of energy can be just as catastrophic. While
| not digging it up would be effective, I'm not sure some
| people in developing* country would necessarily agree.
|
| It's a complex topic, and Australia (where I live) has little
| excuse to still be using coal fired energy so much. Politics
| gets in the way of the obvious solutions.
|
| I don't particularly like attributing CO2 to the source.
| Unless we're going to stop counting CO2 emission internally,
| because the oil has been extracted elsewhere.
|
| edit: updated to developing, didn't realise the other was
| offensive. My apologies
| gostsamo wrote:
| If you care about third-world countries, at least be polite
| enough to call them developing countries.
| anshorei wrote:
| The third in "third-world" has the same meaning as the
| third in "third-party cookies". They were the countries
| that aligned themselves with neither the liberal (first)
| or communist (second) worlds who were the principal
| parties to the cold war. I wish people would stop getting
| offended at things they don't understand.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > I wish people would stop getting offended at things
| they don't understand.
|
| What wasn't understood?
|
| If the term third-world was being used to talk about cold
| war political alignment, they wouldn't have objected. But
| that's not how it was being used. The objection was
| completely valid.
| StevenRayOrr wrote:
| Developing into what?
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Exploitation machines just like big daddy united states.
| Unless they have resources we want ofc, then the CIA
| simply puts in a complicit dictator!
| mdp2021 wrote:
| 'Third World' was coined - I believe, by Alfred Sauvy in
| 1952 (following Pascal Boniface) - as an expression to
| literally mean "non aligned in the dichotomy of NATO vs
| Warsaw pact affiliance".
|
| Stereotypes about qualities frequent in Countries of such
| /political/ quality (such as said alleged "need for
| development", following the poster) are not implied.
|
| 'Third' is proper for "non-aligned"; 'developing' when
| noting such state makes sense (special sense, since
| growth seems to be a shared goal); some other term for
| other cases - such as "rich in raw materials", etc.
| gostsamo wrote:
| I can come up with list of words that were coined with
| some intention and gained another. Why a term was created
| has nothing to do with how it is used and the gp comment
| wasn't in the context of the cold war history.
| tremon wrote:
| So you are aware that the word has multiple connotations,
| yet you chose to focus on the connotation that paints the
| GP in the worst light... why, exactly?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > yet you chose to focus on the connotation that paints
| the GP in the worst light...
|
| Process of elimination.
|
| There are two main connotations. The political one wasn't
| being used, therefore it must be the other one.
|
| "worst" out of two is not exactly a stretch...
| mikrotikker wrote:
| An inherent need to be offended on behalf of others, in
| order to add some purpose to ones life.
| gostsamo wrote:
| Or I interpret it in the context it is used, referring to
| poor countries as third world.
|
| All this outrage about my remark is triggering my sense
| of irony. Too bad I'm social drinker only.
|
| PS: congrats to the gp who edited his comment.
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _list of words_
|
| No need because that is the normal process, involving
| meaning and use - you could present the whole dictionary.
|
| But it is none of our business if suddenly one individual
| or a multitude start using 'mangrove' for something they
| decide, and it gives no toss of credential to those who
| after that decide that 'mangrove' does not mean
| "mangrove".
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| With respect to CO2 emissions, it is quite simple. The
| amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is exactly
| correlated with the amount of fossil fuel dug up (modulo
| the proportion turned into plastics/whatever)
| finnh wrote:
| People will deforest their surroundings and burn wood to
| keep warm.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This has the same energy as saying, "If we ban nukes,
| then people will just TNT each other."
| finnh wrote:
| You think? People have to keep warm; they don't have to
| bomb each other.
|
| Anyway Europe is trying this wood instead of coal thing
| right now:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/euro
| pe/...
| londons_explore wrote:
| Which is probably less harmful than burning oil. At least
| that forest can regrow in 50 years, whereas the oil will
| take millions of years to reform.
| nick__m wrote:
| According to The Guardian wood produces more CO2 than
| other combustible per unit of heat1. It also produces as
| much if not more soot than burning coal and a quantity of
| NOx and SOx comparable to the combustion of natural gaz.2
| It also produces copious amount of creosote a substance
| known to cause cancer to workers in wood treatment
| facilities.3
|
| Mature trees that have reached a slower growth phase are
| better used as construction material, that way the carbon
| is sequestered for a long time and younger faster growing
| trees that replace them can transform CO2 again.
|
| 1) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/01/po
| llutio...
|
| 2) https://wood-energy.extension.org/what-are-the-air-
| emissions...
|
| 3) https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-
| products/creo...
| finnh wrote:
| Yes, burning wood may be more sustainable in that lens.
| Whether it is less harmful is orthogonal. Heat pumps are
| efficient in ways that wood fires cannot be, for example,
| so oil -> electricity -> heat pump may well be far better
| for the atmosphere than "burn some wood".
| zaroth wrote:
| It is not. Heating and cooking with wood is absolutely
| deadly, particularly because by definition it's done, on
| average, by the poorest households in structures without
| proper ventilation.
| nomel wrote:
| Or, more directly, it's proportional to energy needs,
| with the means of production that are currently
| economical.
| tda wrote:
| No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary
| inconvenience. Depriving your children with a future is on
| a whole other level. And that is exactly where we are
| heading: climate catastrophe leading to famine, drought,
| flooding, unmanageable sea level rise etc.
|
| People could do with a lot less energy 40 years ago, I'm
| sure we can get by just fine with a little less.
| nostrebored wrote:
| Inconvenience is a very poor guess. Energy restriction
| kills people.
| zaroth wrote:
| More people than the climate, that's for sure.
|
| Energy production levels must increase profoundly, while
| costs must fall. This is already happening, and not even
| that slowly in the grand scheme of things. Personal
| energy generation and storage is already cheaper than the
| grid as long as you can finance the upfront investment at
| a reasonable rate.
|
| I'll say it until I'm, err, green in the face. Make clean
| energy cheaper and more abundant and it will be used.
| Make climate friendly products more compelling and
| cheaper than their dirtier substitutes, and the better
| products will win on the open market.
|
| Climate austerity is not so much "saving the future" but
| rather "murdering the poor" and I find it morally
| indefensible.
| zizee wrote:
| > No, depriving people of energe now is only a temporary
| inconvenience.
|
| Wow. This is so incredibly out of touch. The world
| consists of more than just wealthy people driving large
| cars, living in large houses, flying for vacation and
| work.
|
| Even poorer people in rich/developed countries people die
| due to lack of cheap energy through heatstroke or
| freezing. And that is just at a micro level. At a macro
| level a huge amount of the world's food production relies
| on cheap energy. Take it away and there will be
| disastrous consequences.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Roughly half the people alive today exist because of
| cheap energy. If you take that away, it will be more than
| inconvenient.
| tenpies wrote:
| > depriving people of energe now is only a temporary
| inconvenience.
|
| Where do you live?
|
| I mean this rhetorically, because for a couple billion of
| people your definition of "minor inconvenience" is
| literally death.
|
| Ask a Canadian how inconvenient it is to go without heat
| in the winter.
|
| Ask an elderly Singaporean how inconvenient it is to go
| without AC in the summer.
| Aperocky wrote:
| Or maybe those countries are just realistic and didn't want
| to put people who already live paycheck to paycheck on a more
| desperate economic footing.
|
| There's no cake milord!
| voytec wrote:
| I highly recommend The Juice Media YT channel and their
| caricatured series called "Honest Government Ads" [1]. They are
| covering climate change and, among others, Australian government
| incompetency in quite funny, provocative and slightly NSFW way.
|
| [1] The Fires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BmbvTvFQ3g
|
| [1] We're Fine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOmdkN6MOwU
|
| [1] the Safeguard Mechanism:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkE_VaMD4k
| shidoshi wrote:
| These are amazing.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| samstave wrote:
| Love things like this!
|
| "Brought to you by the Department of Thoughts and Prayers"
| swarnie wrote:
| I thought that named looked familiar and oh my, they are the
| RAP NEWS guys.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok
|
| I'm going to lose an hour of my life reminiscing about how
| Youtube used to be and what it would have been.
| kawsper wrote:
| Sadly Hugo (the rapper) decided to go solo to focus on his
| own career, he does some Rap News inspired videos now, it's
| not quite the same without Giordano:
| https://youtu.be/N4-FGp0vvck
| rnk wrote:
| Wow, that was excellent, thanks for the pointer. I also liked
| "ultimate rap battles of history", but this rap had an
| excellent political take on it. What kind of justice would we
| want served on us eventually? We can do better than we have
| so far. What great historical references, what did we do with
| the nazis at Nuremberg, hire some at nasa, and hang some of
| them. It's complicated but it's not wrong.
| sterlind wrote:
| Rap News was wasted on the early 2010s. Such a stable, boring
| time compared to Brexit, Trump, Covid, the war in Ukraine,
| ChatGPT, UAP disclosure. Why couldn't Robert Foster have been
| born a few years later?
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Obama vs McCain was the most boring presidential election
| ever. Because either way, we could be sure nothing too
| crazy was going to happen in the White House for at least
| four years. The media must have hated it.
| officeplant wrote:
| Never thought I would miss suit colors being
| controversial.
| bigger_cheese wrote:
| I haven't thought about Robert Foster and Rap News for
| years. I can still remember the rap about wikileaks
|
| "Shattering schemes and the lies that we've been sold. By a
| fourth estate that rolled over and did as it's told."
| imdsm wrote:
| So basically, chlorine compounds (hydrochloric acid) in the
| atmosphere from CFCs (old aerosols, fridges) turn back into
| chlorine thanks to the smoke particles, which wouldn't otherwise
| happen, and the sun then causes the chlorine to break down in
| sunlight to chlorine ions which "eat the ozone".
|
| So it's a race against time between the ozone recovering through
| the decay of these CFC-related harmless chemicals, and smoke from
| wildfires making the ozone larger and not recovering.
|
| Not all wildfires send smoke high enough though.
|
| Interesting read!
| brink wrote:
| It sounds like a reason to do more controlled burns.
| leoedin wrote:
| They don't seem to answer the question of why the chlorine in
| the atmosphere comes mainly from CFCs. What about all the
| chlorine we use every day from e.g. bleach and swimming pools?
| Does that not wreck the ozone layer because it never gets high
| enough into the atmosphere?
| Uehreka wrote:
| I guess that would be nice background, but you can also find
| the answer in like 5 minutes on Wikipedia.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon From the
| section on Regulation:
|
| > It turns out that one of CFCs' most attractive features--
| their low reactivity--is key to their most destructive
| effects. CFCs' lack of reactivity gives them a lifespan that
| can exceed 100 years, giving them time to diffuse into the
| upper stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, the sun's
| ultraviolet radiation is strong enough to cause the homolytic
| cleavage of the C-Cl bond.
| chris_va wrote:
| They also eat methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, so
| it's not all bad
| londons_explore wrote:
| Hydrochloric acid is a rather common chemical, produced by
| humans in the tens of millions of tonnes. I believe it is also
| quite common in nature - for example, your stomach acid is
| mostly hydrochloric acid.
| Groxx wrote:
| I'm not really sure what you're trying to imply here. E.g. I
| don't usually vomit into the upper atmosphere.
| Acidium01 wrote:
| Are implying that you sometimes, albeit not usually, vomit
| into the upper atmosphere?
| epgui wrote:
| If you ever change your approach, I would be interested in
| photographing this.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Take home lesson, start wearing sun hoodies.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| anoncow wrote:
| I read recently that wildfires should be allowed to burn down
| forests as smaller wildfires when prevented will result in larger
| wildfires in the future (because of availability of more dry
| organic fuel).
|
| This combined with the current article makes me question the
| approach Australia currently uses for wildfires.
|
| Do we let small wildfires burn themselves out?
|
| If yes, why are larger fires happening? Should we actively trim
| forests periodically?
|
| If no, why not?
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Probably no one wants to take the risk or responsibility for
| letting a small one burn in the event that they lose control.
| No one gets in trouble for failing at trying to put it out. But
| taking the decision to stand back? You'll get raked over coals
| if it was the wrong decision.
| fwlr wrote:
| This article missed the chance to be much more interesting. While
| the 2019-2020 Australian fires were undoubtedly catastrophic,
| there have been other much worse fires in recent times. This one
| killed 34 people; a decade prior, the bushfire season killed 5
| times as many people, with 174 deaths. Four decades prior to
| that, the bushfire season burned 5 times as much land area as the
| 2019-2020 season, with over 15% of Australia's total land area
| suffering fire damage.
|
| It was the particularly intense burning, causing smoke to travel
| much further than usual, that caused this season to loom so large
| in people's minds. There are astounding figures, like that 80% of
| the populace experienced days or weeks of heavily smoke-filled
| air, or that it arguably killed as many as 450 people indirectly
| through smoke inhalation interacting with existing respiratory
| issues.
|
| That intense burning was due mostly to the extremely high fuel
| density of the particular areas that were on fire - forests
| rather than grasslands. And the intense burning caused some
| incredible phenomena: flames at ground level that would reach the
| 20th floor of a skyscraper, radiant heat so extreme that you
| could be standing on the other side of an 8-lane highway and it
| would still give you 2nd degree degree burns in seconds and kill
| you in minutes, fire fronts that travel for days at an average of
| 6-8 miles an hour (even an ultra-marathon runner with a head
| start could not stay ahead of the fire) and reach peak speeds
| over 80mph (overtaking you in your car)... and all throughout,
| the roar of a thousand jet engines as vegetation literally
| exploded at the fire's approach - gaseous decomposition from the
| ambient heat.
|
| These fires were so intense that they launched smoke far higher
| into the atmosphere than fires usually do, and so we got to see
| some very unusual chemistry happen in the atmosphere.
|
| I criticize the article for not being as interesting as it could
| be because it exhibits the same malady as so much of the other
| reporting on that bushfire season - the unique physics ignored in
| favour of using the tragedy for political purposes.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _the unique physics ignored in favour of using the tragedy
| for political purposes._
|
| A new study attempting to explain a previously noticed
| phenomenon in the ozone layer is "for political purposes",
| seriously?
| fwlr wrote:
| Perhaps I am being a little unfair, there is a lot of
| discussion of the physics and chemistry in the article. It
| may seem like a wild leap to start talking about politics
| because of a few paragraphs at the end of the article, to
| which I offer the defense that the Australian media landscape
| during that season was extremely, aggravatingly politicized.
| I did try to make sure most of my comment was focused on the
| interesting physics of extreme wildfires, leaving my
| criticism as a one-line post-script at the end.
| epgui wrote:
| I agree with the other commenter and I would even say
| you're completely failing to understand the medium,
| context, and purpose of the piece of writing you're
| criticizing.
| magicalist wrote:
| This isn't an article about how crazy wildfires are, it's
| about the effect on the ozone layer, so not sure why any of
| that would be relevant.
|
| If the objection is that the lead author used the term
| "climate change" out loud, the article seems to go out of
| its way to be precise so the "any mention of climate change
| is political" crowd won't be aroused:
|
| > _Haywood would like to see the new chemistry integrated
| into a climate model to forecast how ozone depletion might
| be affected if intense wildfires become more common._
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Is it odd that a collection of non-USA researchers published
| something similar a year earlier? the USA-based Nature
| publication here is clearly paywalled so, hard to check the real
| differences, or publication references.
|
| https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-247/acp-2022-2...
| stateofinquiry wrote:
| Not sure why you are focused on "USA" or "non-USA", but FYI:
| Nature originated in the UK. Today, Springer-Nature is a major
| international publisher. Springer (formerly Springer-Verlag)
| originated in Germany, BTW.
| tokai wrote:
| No, not odd. Multiple of the authors of the paper you are
| linking are cited in the Nature paper. Your paper also cites
| prior research from Solomon - the first author of the Nature
| article. It is unsurprising that the two papers don't reference
| each other as they have been written and in review at the same
| time.
|
| They are all atmospheric researchers, so there is ofc a change
| that their research subjects overlap.
| CE02 wrote:
| I think this is illustrative of a broader theme which is how
| enduring and baked in a lot of our climate degradation is. As
| much as the chlorine compounds _will_ decay, but not exactly
| anytime soon. To think we won't have an issue with this again
| before they're decayed would be ridiculous.
|
| It's the same thing with the broader topic of global warming.
| Absolutely we should seek to minimize greenhouse gas emissions,
| that's a no brainer. But at our current stage in developement,
| especially with some countries not exactly being team players in
| this fight, a lot of the increase and future increase in
| temperature is baked in (pardon the pun). As much as I'm all for
| mitigation, much like the wildfires themselves, we will already
| have plenty of consequences to come. That's why I'm so excited to
| see focus shifting more towards mitigation and _resilience_. We
| need to be prepared for the inevitable we've caused.
| Uehreka wrote:
| Personally, I wouldn't use the term "excited". The focus could
| just as easily shift towards nationalist movements trying to
| hoard resources and prevent refugees from warmer areas from
| crossing borders. There's no guarantee that "resilience" is
| going to come in the form of technical innovation or human
| cooperation.
| CE02 wrote:
| As much as I see the concerns, the issues that could arise
| from resilience are issues that can arise anywhere where
| human self-interest is present which is just about
| everything. I am excited for firms to start focusing on
| greener office buildings, even if their are some using it to
| greenwash for optics.
|
| Though as I mentioned, I completely see your point. I guess I
| should rephrase to "I am excited that there is the
| _potential_ for positive action in this space.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-09 23:01 UTC)