Recent comments in /f/science

killpineapple t1_j6s0dcz wrote

9

Hour-Watch8988 t1_j6s03hg wrote

4

AutoModerator t1_j6rzdpp wrote

Your submission has been automatically removed because it references a low-quality website. Please consider reposting an article from a professional science journalism website or providing a direct link to the scientific article instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0

PlaceboJesus t1_j6rsw11 wrote

Even some identical twins are more identical than others.
People are incredibly sloppy with language and tend to resist or reject any push towards precision.

While I agree that there's some hyperbole in that title, we probably don't agree as to what qualifies as sensational.

4

Wagamaga OP t1_j6rrspq wrote

While emissions of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), the world’s most potent greenhouse gas, have fallen sharply in the U.S. in recent decades, actual emissions are significantly higher than the official government estimates, a new study concludes.

Across the United States, 390 metric tons of SF6 were emitted into the atmosphere in 2018, the most recent year for which data are available, according to a new study resulting from a joint initiative between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. The study, designed to better quantify SF6 emissions in the U.S., was published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

SF6, a man-made gas used by electric utilities to quickly interrupt the flow of electricity in high voltage circuit breakers, is also the most potent greenhouse gas ever studied by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The gas is 25,200 times more effective at warming the planet than carbon dioxide, making even small releases of SF6 cause for concern.

The volume of SF6 released in 2018 is less than half of what it was a decade prior, but still equaled the annual greenhouse gas emissions of 2.1 million automobiles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas equivalency calculator.

https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/23/1437/2023/acp-23-1437-2023.pdf

23

AutoModerator t1_j6rrn4r wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Gusdai t1_j6roh0t wrote

Asking the real question here.

In most European cities, if you could free up 30% of space you should probably use most of it for housing.

This would also avoid people commuting from far away, thus saving a ton of energy and CO2 emissions. The CO2 captured by a 20-year tree through its growth is probably emitted in a few months max by a single suburban car commuter.

4

Dan__Torrance t1_j6ro5io wrote

Close enough! I think we don't need an arborist for that here, but besides that it feels like the same concept. I'm happy there is something similar at the other side of the pond.

2

whisky_in_your_water t1_j6rnq5c wrote

In my corner of the US, you can have the city arborist classify a tree as a "heritage tree," which protects it from removal. It needs to meet certain requirements, like being old, iconic, and/or rare, but it's an option if you really feel passionate about it.

It's not nearly the same as the German policy, but it's probably fairly common throughout the US.

11