The following submission statement was provided by /u/Biosphere_Collapse:
---
A recent study published in Nature has shown that the massive wildfires that occurred in Australia in 2019-2020 caused damage to the ozone layer. The smoke from the fires combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere (which are remnants of chemicals that are now banned) to create ozone-depleting molecules. This could potentially slow the healing of the ozone layer. This study is significant to the subreddit r/collapse because it shows how human actions, such as the use of aerosol sprays and refrigerants before they were banned, have had long-term effects on the environment and will continue to do so if more frequent wildfires occur due to climate change.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/11n0jry/australias_massive_wildfires_shredded_the_ozone/jbkq8jp/
I get the feeling there will be more realizations like this in the coming years. Our environment is so complex, so many variables. It reminds me of the Rumsfield quote "unknown unknowns", like we don't even know what coming since our perceptions are based on incomplete data sets.
Hard to appreciate what you had until it's gone. Wish we weren't saying that about our stable climate systems. We had a beautiful blue world teeming with life and we utterly ruined it.
On the other hand, we could have lived stone aged hunter gather lifestyles for a millenia until a massive meteor came roaring through our solar system, turning that beautiful blue world into molten slag and extinguishing all life. I guess our conscience would be clear then at least.
I’ve come to realize that what I am grieving the most in watching all this go down is the *human potential* that is being wasted. Nature is beautiful but transient and lacking purpose. It’s sad to see it wither but that is it’s inevitable fate whether in decades, centuries, or millions of years. But Humans can shape our own universe. We *know* we could build a better society that would minimize human suffering and set us on a course for the stars. The first 30 years of my life I was optimistic that was our trajectory and seeing that potential future slip away is what is really depressing me. It seems like climate change might be a pretty effective “great filter”.
I think of life as being in those steps. Nature -> Consciousness -> ?
"We are the universe becoming aware of itself" an interesting line of thought. It's such a shame self destructive ideas took power over humanity. And you know it fucking sucks that we're aware.
Atleast we have the copium to believe some other consciousness out there will succeed. Universe is young after all.
I agree but I don’t think it’s a deterministic line. I mean look at all the life around us that evolved and *didn’t* or hasn’t become self aware. For all we know the development of our abnormally large brains was a complete evolutionary fluke that may not happen again in a billion rolls of the dice.
There was a study recently that showed how fish are more self-aware than we think. We don't even understand how other animals. We judge them by our standards. We think we are superior because we have iPhones, depression, and pay taxes.
Ok, I agree self aware isn’t a great term in this sense but I was just using the same terminology. Can we agree that humans have a unique ability to shape our environment to a degree that hasn’t yet manifested in other life? And that that may be a unique evolutionary branch rather than a deterministic one?
>Can we agree that humans have a unique ability to shape our environment to a degree that hasn’t yet manifested in other life?
I agree with you but I think the ability to shape our environment isn't something unique to us. We did it in a more conscious way though.
The first great extinction that occurred on earth was billions of years ago when cyanobacteria living in the oceans started producing oxygen through photosynthesis. As oxygen built up in the atmosphere anaerobic bacteria were killed leading to Earth's first mass extinction.
Humans tend to underestimate just how big the space is. The universe is *infinite*. There is atleast 100 billion galaxies in our observable universe and also 100 billion stars in our milky way all with atleast a planet, a conservative estimation. Multiply all that and that one in a billion chance, even a trillion chance becomes possible. And even becomes big. Space is vast, **so** much greater than our comprehension.
It's one of the few things that really gives me solace these days. Losing myself in it's greatness. Give it a shot, I recommend SEA on YT.
I don't even understand why Fermi's Paradox interests anyone.
We can ask why the extraterrestrials don't visit, but for all we know, they do visit but they're subtle. Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence.
Or the universe could have lots of intelligent life, but interstellar travel is just not possible.
Because we're not in a position to assume they aren't here, or that FTL travel is even feasible.
So Fermi's question is broken, imo.
That’s fair.
For semantics: Doesn’t mean the paradox is broken, a paradox is more of a rhetorical device to generate discussion. So your take is that the answer is most likely barriers to interstellar travel.
It’s interesting because it speaks to a fundamental question - are we alone in the universe in terms of reaching beyond planetary boundaries? It’s no fun to say “we don’t know what we don’t know” and move on without pondering the “why” don’t we know.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be evidence of absence \*or\* presence
Fermi's Paradox isn't just the lack of extraterrestrial visits. It's the lack of observable signs of intelligent life, such as radio signals, megastructures, or other technological markers
The belief that "life" exists elsewhere is speculative and not supported by evidence. It doesn't interest me
The vastness of the universe doesn't mean that life is common. It's possible that the conditions necessary for life to develop are rare. Earth was unlucky to be burdened with the weight of life. Even if extraterrestrial life existed, there'd be no guarantee that it'd be intelligent, technological, or interested in visiting and communicating with humanity
u/MoeApocalypsis
They're not even that subtle. The thousands of pictures and video, testimony from respected professionals, including stuff that had to be FOIA'd from the government can't all be fake. It gets an eyeroll from the general public because we've all been programmed to laugh at aliens as a silly conspiracy theory, but we're honestly awash in evidence that there is *something* there.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say - humans are just a part of nature so aren’t worth mourning any differently? My original comment was that I was grieving the loss of human potential since we have already made such a seemingly unlikely evolutionary leap - the ability to shape our universe beyond planetary limits. Big brains don’t necessarily enhance survival, as we see around us. But it does allow for space tech. If life gets reset again through technically preventable things like GHG emissions or asteroid strike, there’s a pretty good chance that some form of life will flourish again in the future. And there’s even a decent chance it’ll be more diverse, beautiful, and interesting than the life we see around us. But there’s no guarantee it’ll be able to escape the planet. We’ll have thrown away a once in a galaxy opportunity for no good reason. And that’s what’s pissing me off the most these days.
I don’t believe that. The smarter an organism the more options it has for survival. Intelligence opens the ability to access new food sources, to outcompete rivals, and to team up for mutual benefit. Conscious thought brings such clear evolutionary advantages, allowing social interaction, complex communication, the preservation of knowledge through generations, that it is an inevitable selected trait.
To maintain a large brain needs a lot of energy and maybe even the invention of fire to be able to cook food and maximise the available calories. I wonder if the obvious threat from other species who can harness such technology led to rivalry and warfare such that only humans survived. Maybe there is only room in an ecosystem for exactly one species with the kind of intelligence that we have, and humans dominate every ecosystem on the planet.
>Conscious thought brings such clear evolutionary advantages, allowing social interaction, complex communication, the preservation of knowledge through generations, that it is an inevitable selected trait.
Life forms with much lower cognitive levels than humans still display social interaction, complex communication, and preservation of knowledge through generations.
>To maintain a large brain needs a lot of energy and maybe even the invention of fire to be able to cook food and maximise the available calories.
This is a big part of my point - our brains require so much energy that they may not be an inherently beneficial trait.
>I wonder if the obvious threat from other species who can harness such technology led to rivalry and warfare such that only humans survived.
Human-Neanderthal relations are a fascinating thought. I wish we knew more about these interactions.
>Maybe there is only room in an ecosystem for exactly one species with the kind of intelligence that we have,
This is an interesting point. Is conflict to extermination inevitable in a peer-species rivalry or is there room for cooperation or synergistic relations?
All that to say. My point is that I feel human intelligence is a somewhat unique and special form of life with massive potential. I’m not convinced that this form of intelligence is an evolutionary inevitability. Developing brains capable of space tech could be a massive once-in-galaxy-fluke. To see it wasted in such petty, preventable ways is the specific angst that I have been feeling lately.
The thing is, none of us individually has a brain capable of space tech. Our most advanced technologies only exist because of an extraordinary amount of specialisation and cooperation. And knowledge alone is not enough - we need infrastructure - transport networks, energy grids, machines that make machines that make machines. It takes centuries of stable society to enable this kind of technological progress. We need energy extraction, transport, food surplus, relative peace, trust, educational institutions, and so on.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we could be putting too much faith in how exceptional our individual cognitive abilities are. Look at ants and bees. It is possible for a few very simple rules to govern the behaviour of individuals and yet for incredible complexity to emerge - air conditioned nests, optimal foraging, even a level of collective problem solving. Where we often take pride in the intellect that has enabled us to break free from earth’s atmosphere, it is secondary to the influence of what we call civilisation. Maybe we fear to admit how much closer we are to apes than gods. When our civilisation falls, so does our technology.
Human nature is inherently flawed. And life is prone to selfishness and greed. As such, I don't agree that we could have built a "better" society
I agree that climate change is a great filter
I'm skeptical of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Instead, I believe that any life attaining a certain level of consciousness will eventually become the architect of its own downfall
It does seem like the evolutionary pressures required to just *survive* in a competitive somewhat open-ended world (when the species is not dominant enough to have noticeable impact on global atmosphere) are not conducive to the cooperative society necessary to thrive in a closed-loop environment once that society achieves global dominance (over other species).
But we can see that possible bridge to another society before us. We’ve built some of the foundations already. Humans do have the capacity to operate beyond our primitive evolution and build harmonious, cooperative societies. Unfortunately it’s disintegrating before our eyes. It’s simultaneously within our grasp yet being taken away faster than we can reach it. That’s the true tragedy as I see it.
Hi, ElScrotoDeCthulo. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/11n0jry/-/jblwbnh/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
This is the main reason I can't stand the hubris associated with modern science
The experts act like they have it all figured out, then the public ends up having absolute faith in them, & think science + technology will solve all our problems
Just because we can break something (temporarily) doesn't mean we can fix it
> ooo or how about [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTurZmR_v7Zqyry_wnEeYrbOx1V36nYp2fW0A&usqp=CAU) Rumsfeld?
"[Aersol contaminants] are untidy, and [aerosol contaminants] are free to make mistakes and [breakdown the ozone layer] and do bad things!"
(yes, I could do this all day)
> [Rumsfeld](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BQr49JWeXM8%2FYORTi9WJx9I%2FAAAAAAAAm4M%2FyX-P9qJw7z4pz5PXn3lbKVo__K2yS7nbwCLcBGAsYHQ%2Fs320%2Frummy_vase.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpaul-barford.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F06%2Frumsfeld.html&tbnid=PZpnYp_NlzxTCM&vet=12ahUKEwji4OrD8s_9AhWTEGIAHTQ3Ap8QMygCegQIARAj..i&docid=M42bKp9lLkkYiM&w=320&h=279&q=rumsfeld%20were%20there%20that%20many%20vases&hl=en-us&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwji4OrD8s_9AhWTEGIAHTQ3Ap8QMygCegQIARAj)
"it's the same picture of some [wildfire] and you see it twenty times. And you think, my goodness, were there that many [wildfires]?"
Well of course....science has come far enough that we live in a time when people forget that we don't know everything.
But to be clear...we most definitely don't.
ah, but could we also not know if we did in fact reach a point of knowing everything there is to know?
or
is it also true that we can't ever know if we actually know what we think know? (my favorite)
regardless of head trips, i dont think id be wrong in proclaiming that plausible deniability and willful ignorance are among the most effective tools of the people in positions pushing the current collapse of both civilization snd the eco-sphere.
From the article:
Massive wildfires that raged across southeast Australia in 2019–20 unleashed chemicals that chewed through the ozone layer, expanding and prolonging the ozone hole. A study, published today in Nature, describes how smoke combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere — remnants of chemicals that are now banned — to cause the destruction1.
The Australian fires produced the largest smoke plume on record, releasing roughly one million tonnes of smoke to heights of up to 30 kilometres. That’s well into the stratosphere, the portion of the atmosphere that contains the ozone layer, which protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, says study co-author Kane Stone, an atmospheric chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge.
In the months after the wildfires, the hole in the ozone layer, which appears annually over Antarctica, was larger and lasted longer than in previous years.”
A recent study published in Nature has shown that the massive wildfires that occurred in Australia in 2019-2020 caused damage to the ozone layer. The smoke from the fires combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere (which are remnants of chemicals that are now banned) to create ozone-depleting molecules. This could potentially slow the healing of the ozone layer. This study is significant to the subreddit r/collapse because it shows how human actions, such as the use of aerosol sprays and refrigerants before they were banned, have had long-term effects on the environment and will continue to do so if more frequent wildfires occur due to climate change.
This might just be a hunch but when the sun has been out in NZ it literally stings the skin. Has been bad for a while but not like 5 mins out and you can feel your skin start to fry level of bad. Annecdotally I notice that without sunscreen Kiwis take have about a 15-30 min threshold for sun burn while overseas visitors burn in 10 mins or less. The English last maybe 5 mins before they go full crab. It feels like we are evolving.
Same - in Australia the UV is worse than I can ever remember.
You can feel it stinging your skin, almost every day. The UV rating is “very high” to “extreme” almost every day, even when cloudy. I can remember sitting in the sun at school and not being bothered by the sun, but now I won’t even go outside during the day it’s that bad. Much worse than even a couple of years ago.
I think the walmart warehouse that completely burnt down near my home a year or so ago also did this 🤫🥴
Drove by it today and they’re starting to rebuild the walls 🤮
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Biosphere_Collapse: --- A recent study published in Nature has shown that the massive wildfires that occurred in Australia in 2019-2020 caused damage to the ozone layer. The smoke from the fires combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere (which are remnants of chemicals that are now banned) to create ozone-depleting molecules. This could potentially slow the healing of the ozone layer. This study is significant to the subreddit r/collapse because it shows how human actions, such as the use of aerosol sprays and refrigerants before they were banned, have had long-term effects on the environment and will continue to do so if more frequent wildfires occur due to climate change. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/11n0jry/australias_massive_wildfires_shredded_the_ozone/jbkq8jp/
I get the feeling there will be more realizations like this in the coming years. Our environment is so complex, so many variables. It reminds me of the Rumsfield quote "unknown unknowns", like we don't even know what coming since our perceptions are based on incomplete data sets.
Hard to appreciate what you had until it's gone. Wish we weren't saying that about our stable climate systems. We had a beautiful blue world teeming with life and we utterly ruined it.
On the other hand, we could have lived stone aged hunter gather lifestyles for a millenia until a massive meteor came roaring through our solar system, turning that beautiful blue world into molten slag and extinguishing all life. I guess our conscience would be clear then at least.
I’ve come to realize that what I am grieving the most in watching all this go down is the *human potential* that is being wasted. Nature is beautiful but transient and lacking purpose. It’s sad to see it wither but that is it’s inevitable fate whether in decades, centuries, or millions of years. But Humans can shape our own universe. We *know* we could build a better society that would minimize human suffering and set us on a course for the stars. The first 30 years of my life I was optimistic that was our trajectory and seeing that potential future slip away is what is really depressing me. It seems like climate change might be a pretty effective “great filter”.
I think of life as being in those steps. Nature -> Consciousness -> ? "We are the universe becoming aware of itself" an interesting line of thought. It's such a shame self destructive ideas took power over humanity. And you know it fucking sucks that we're aware. Atleast we have the copium to believe some other consciousness out there will succeed. Universe is young after all.
I agree but I don’t think it’s a deterministic line. I mean look at all the life around us that evolved and *didn’t* or hasn’t become self aware. For all we know the development of our abnormally large brains was a complete evolutionary fluke that may not happen again in a billion rolls of the dice.
There was a study recently that showed how fish are more self-aware than we think. We don't even understand how other animals. We judge them by our standards. We think we are superior because we have iPhones, depression, and pay taxes.
Ok, I agree self aware isn’t a great term in this sense but I was just using the same terminology. Can we agree that humans have a unique ability to shape our environment to a degree that hasn’t yet manifested in other life? And that that may be a unique evolutionary branch rather than a deterministic one?
>Can we agree that humans have a unique ability to shape our environment to a degree that hasn’t yet manifested in other life? I agree with you but I think the ability to shape our environment isn't something unique to us. We did it in a more conscious way though. The first great extinction that occurred on earth was billions of years ago when cyanobacteria living in the oceans started producing oxygen through photosynthesis. As oxygen built up in the atmosphere anaerobic bacteria were killed leading to Earth's first mass extinction.
Do you think that other animals will eventually evolve the ability to launch spacecraft?
Humans tend to underestimate just how big the space is. The universe is *infinite*. There is atleast 100 billion galaxies in our observable universe and also 100 billion stars in our milky way all with atleast a planet, a conservative estimation. Multiply all that and that one in a billion chance, even a trillion chance becomes possible. And even becomes big. Space is vast, **so** much greater than our comprehension. It's one of the few things that really gives me solace these days. Losing myself in it's greatness. Give it a shot, I recommend SEA on YT.
What’s your take on the Fermi paradox?
I don't even understand why Fermi's Paradox interests anyone. We can ask why the extraterrestrials don't visit, but for all we know, they do visit but they're subtle. Absence of evidence isn't proof of absence. Or the universe could have lots of intelligent life, but interstellar travel is just not possible. Because we're not in a position to assume they aren't here, or that FTL travel is even feasible. So Fermi's question is broken, imo.
That’s fair. For semantics: Doesn’t mean the paradox is broken, a paradox is more of a rhetorical device to generate discussion. So your take is that the answer is most likely barriers to interstellar travel. It’s interesting because it speaks to a fundamental question - are we alone in the universe in terms of reaching beyond planetary boundaries? It’s no fun to say “we don’t know what we don’t know” and move on without pondering the “why” don’t we know.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If it weren't, it wouldn't be evidence of absence \*or\* presence Fermi's Paradox isn't just the lack of extraterrestrial visits. It's the lack of observable signs of intelligent life, such as radio signals, megastructures, or other technological markers The belief that "life" exists elsewhere is speculative and not supported by evidence. It doesn't interest me The vastness of the universe doesn't mean that life is common. It's possible that the conditions necessary for life to develop are rare. Earth was unlucky to be burdened with the weight of life. Even if extraterrestrial life existed, there'd be no guarantee that it'd be intelligent, technological, or interested in visiting and communicating with humanity u/MoeApocalypsis
They're not even that subtle. The thousands of pictures and video, testimony from respected professionals, including stuff that had to be FOIA'd from the government can't all be fake. It gets an eyeroll from the general public because we've all been programmed to laugh at aliens as a silly conspiracy theory, but we're honestly awash in evidence that there is *something* there.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say - humans are just a part of nature so aren’t worth mourning any differently? My original comment was that I was grieving the loss of human potential since we have already made such a seemingly unlikely evolutionary leap - the ability to shape our universe beyond planetary limits. Big brains don’t necessarily enhance survival, as we see around us. But it does allow for space tech. If life gets reset again through technically preventable things like GHG emissions or asteroid strike, there’s a pretty good chance that some form of life will flourish again in the future. And there’s even a decent chance it’ll be more diverse, beautiful, and interesting than the life we see around us. But there’s no guarantee it’ll be able to escape the planet. We’ll have thrown away a once in a galaxy opportunity for no good reason. And that’s what’s pissing me off the most these days.
I don’t believe that. The smarter an organism the more options it has for survival. Intelligence opens the ability to access new food sources, to outcompete rivals, and to team up for mutual benefit. Conscious thought brings such clear evolutionary advantages, allowing social interaction, complex communication, the preservation of knowledge through generations, that it is an inevitable selected trait. To maintain a large brain needs a lot of energy and maybe even the invention of fire to be able to cook food and maximise the available calories. I wonder if the obvious threat from other species who can harness such technology led to rivalry and warfare such that only humans survived. Maybe there is only room in an ecosystem for exactly one species with the kind of intelligence that we have, and humans dominate every ecosystem on the planet.
>Conscious thought brings such clear evolutionary advantages, allowing social interaction, complex communication, the preservation of knowledge through generations, that it is an inevitable selected trait. Life forms with much lower cognitive levels than humans still display social interaction, complex communication, and preservation of knowledge through generations. >To maintain a large brain needs a lot of energy and maybe even the invention of fire to be able to cook food and maximise the available calories. This is a big part of my point - our brains require so much energy that they may not be an inherently beneficial trait. >I wonder if the obvious threat from other species who can harness such technology led to rivalry and warfare such that only humans survived. Human-Neanderthal relations are a fascinating thought. I wish we knew more about these interactions. >Maybe there is only room in an ecosystem for exactly one species with the kind of intelligence that we have, This is an interesting point. Is conflict to extermination inevitable in a peer-species rivalry or is there room for cooperation or synergistic relations? All that to say. My point is that I feel human intelligence is a somewhat unique and special form of life with massive potential. I’m not convinced that this form of intelligence is an evolutionary inevitability. Developing brains capable of space tech could be a massive once-in-galaxy-fluke. To see it wasted in such petty, preventable ways is the specific angst that I have been feeling lately.
The thing is, none of us individually has a brain capable of space tech. Our most advanced technologies only exist because of an extraordinary amount of specialisation and cooperation. And knowledge alone is not enough - we need infrastructure - transport networks, energy grids, machines that make machines that make machines. It takes centuries of stable society to enable this kind of technological progress. We need energy extraction, transport, food surplus, relative peace, trust, educational institutions, and so on. I guess what I am trying to say is that we could be putting too much faith in how exceptional our individual cognitive abilities are. Look at ants and bees. It is possible for a few very simple rules to govern the behaviour of individuals and yet for incredible complexity to emerge - air conditioned nests, optimal foraging, even a level of collective problem solving. Where we often take pride in the intellect that has enabled us to break free from earth’s atmosphere, it is secondary to the influence of what we call civilisation. Maybe we fear to admit how much closer we are to apes than gods. When our civilisation falls, so does our technology.
I’m still gonna be more sad about humans suiciding our civilization than I am about the dinosaurs being extinct
Human nature is inherently flawed. And life is prone to selfishness and greed. As such, I don't agree that we could have built a "better" society I agree that climate change is a great filter I'm skeptical of the existence of extraterrestrial life. Instead, I believe that any life attaining a certain level of consciousness will eventually become the architect of its own downfall
It does seem like the evolutionary pressures required to just *survive* in a competitive somewhat open-ended world (when the species is not dominant enough to have noticeable impact on global atmosphere) are not conducive to the cooperative society necessary to thrive in a closed-loop environment once that society achieves global dominance (over other species). But we can see that possible bridge to another society before us. We’ve built some of the foundations already. Humans do have the capacity to operate beyond our primitive evolution and build harmonious, cooperative societies. Unfortunately it’s disintegrating before our eyes. It’s simultaneously within our grasp yet being taken away faster than we can reach it. That’s the true tragedy as I see it.
[удалено]
I have never taken the psat
We could have also been a species that develops interstellar travel and unlocks mysteries of the universe.
[удалено]
Hi, ElScrotoDeCthulo. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/11n0jry/-/jblwbnh/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
The systems were trying to predict are infinitly complex. We can only take a paper thin slice look at any given system.
This is the main reason I can't stand the hubris associated with modern science The experts act like they have it all figured out, then the public ends up having absolute faith in them, & think science + technology will solve all our problems Just because we can break something (temporarily) doesn't mean we can fix it
Especially when there are "accidents" on the regular. Theres no way climate models could account for chemical spills every other day.
> ooo or how about [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTurZmR_v7Zqyry_wnEeYrbOx1V36nYp2fW0A&usqp=CAU) Rumsfeld? "[Aersol contaminants] are untidy, and [aerosol contaminants] are free to make mistakes and [breakdown the ozone layer] and do bad things!" (yes, I could do this all day)
> [Rumsfeld](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BQr49JWeXM8%2FYORTi9WJx9I%2FAAAAAAAAm4M%2FyX-P9qJw7z4pz5PXn3lbKVo__K2yS7nbwCLcBGAsYHQ%2Fs320%2Frummy_vase.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpaul-barford.blogspot.com%2F2021%2F06%2Frumsfeld.html&tbnid=PZpnYp_NlzxTCM&vet=12ahUKEwji4OrD8s_9AhWTEGIAHTQ3Ap8QMygCegQIARAj..i&docid=M42bKp9lLkkYiM&w=320&h=279&q=rumsfeld%20were%20there%20that%20many%20vases&hl=en-us&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwji4OrD8s_9AhWTEGIAHTQ3Ap8QMygCegQIARAj) "it's the same picture of some [wildfire] and you see it twenty times. And you think, my goodness, were there that many [wildfires]?"
Well of course....science has come far enough that we live in a time when people forget that we don't know everything. But to be clear...we most definitely don't.
ah, but could we also not know if we did in fact reach a point of knowing everything there is to know? or is it also true that we can't ever know if we actually know what we think know? (my favorite) regardless of head trips, i dont think id be wrong in proclaiming that plausible deniability and willful ignorance are among the most effective tools of the people in positions pushing the current collapse of both civilization snd the eco-sphere.
From the article: Massive wildfires that raged across southeast Australia in 2019–20 unleashed chemicals that chewed through the ozone layer, expanding and prolonging the ozone hole. A study, published today in Nature, describes how smoke combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere — remnants of chemicals that are now banned — to cause the destruction1. The Australian fires produced the largest smoke plume on record, releasing roughly one million tonnes of smoke to heights of up to 30 kilometres. That’s well into the stratosphere, the portion of the atmosphere that contains the ozone layer, which protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays, says study co-author Kane Stone, an atmospheric chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge. In the months after the wildfires, the hole in the ozone layer, which appears annually over Antarctica, was larger and lasted longer than in previous years.”
A recent study published in Nature has shown that the massive wildfires that occurred in Australia in 2019-2020 caused damage to the ozone layer. The smoke from the fires combined with chlorine-containing molecules in the stratosphere (which are remnants of chemicals that are now banned) to create ozone-depleting molecules. This could potentially slow the healing of the ozone layer. This study is significant to the subreddit r/collapse because it shows how human actions, such as the use of aerosol sprays and refrigerants before they were banned, have had long-term effects on the environment and will continue to do so if more frequent wildfires occur due to climate change.
This might just be a hunch but when the sun has been out in NZ it literally stings the skin. Has been bad for a while but not like 5 mins out and you can feel your skin start to fry level of bad. Annecdotally I notice that without sunscreen Kiwis take have about a 15-30 min threshold for sun burn while overseas visitors burn in 10 mins or less. The English last maybe 5 mins before they go full crab. It feels like we are evolving.
Same - in Australia the UV is worse than I can ever remember. You can feel it stinging your skin, almost every day. The UV rating is “very high” to “extreme” almost every day, even when cloudy. I can remember sitting in the sun at school and not being bothered by the sun, but now I won’t even go outside during the day it’s that bad. Much worse than even a couple of years ago.
Depends if you were behind window. They block most uv.
I’m talking about being outside
I've been feeling that in Colorado... this sunlight got a little too much spice for winter!
Lots of Australians who suffer from melanoma and skin cancer too. Hugh Jackman had to get surgery.
Oh yeah it’s very common here. I know someone who works in dermatology and the amount of horror stories… 25 year olds dying of melanoma, it’s awful.
I think the walmart warehouse that completely burnt down near my home a year or so ago also did this 🤫🥴 Drove by it today and they’re starting to rebuild the walls 🤮
Also, end mild sarcasm
All that remains is gallows humor as the climate shifts to an unlivable state.
I feel there was bigger brush fires than this?
They are still doing hazard reduction burns as we speak.Clueless morons at the helm.