Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Broeker pointed out long ago, that even if all plants, on land as well as at sea, were killed off and then decomposed, the process would consume less than 1 percent of the atmosphere’s oxygen https://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/3939/1537 …pic.twitter.com/PffzFrGXjG
Here again, it is confirmed that the Amazon produces no net oxygen https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/ …pic.twitter.com/GRh9nAuWZx
I think people know by now:)
Neither do your lungs produce net oxygen, smarty.
So what I am wondering is if the amazon sort of works like a wetland in that it filters what comes through it? Between the rain and the vegetation it seems plausible. Not the lungs of the earth, just a clump of "nosehairs" in the ever running sinus that is a rainforest.
For air, obviously it works as a wetland for water.
Funnily enough the article also makes clear what’s much worse for the Earth‘s oxygen supply than burning the Amazon: burning fossil fuels. So we‘ll maybe better stop that!
It used to be one of the big arguments against cutting and burning in the rainforest is that amazon stored little carbon in the soil and that it gets deplete quickly.
Wow, another genius in town... Bjorn, still deviating the discussion from the real issue ?pic.twitter.com/89NiL83EZ4
Har nogen påstået det da? Det er samlede stående biomasse i økosystemerne som har betydning for CO2 balancen. Reduceres biomassen stiger CO2 i atmosfæren. #dkgreen
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
